Political situation

[interesteddad]

<p>You will find no shortage of people who will be willing to argue politics with you 'til the sun comes up and everyone of last of them will be as absolutely sure they are right as you probably are!</p>

<p>My daughter said that her only complaint with Swarthmore is more heated political discussion among students than she cares to hear, mostly because it quickly becomes clear that nobody is going to change the other’s mind. Sounds like she tends to stay clear of it for the most part. Of course, this was also an election year, so political debate would have been at four-year peak. Politics is so partisan these days, with both sides seemingly haven forgotten about shades of gray, that I can understand her position. Political discouse these days is pretty tedious – merely disagreeing with a politician being reason enough to demonize him or her.</p>

<p>Here’s a superb blog entry by Swat history prof. Tim Burke on the subject of liberals and conservatives in the ranks of professors:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/tburke1/perma21604.html[/url]”>http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/tburke1/perma21604.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>A couple of snippets:</p>

<p>

2. No one is ever asked, bluntly, in the humanities what their political affiliation is at the time of hiring. The discussion of the “politics” of a candidate in history or anthropology has never, in my own experience, involved any speculation about political affiliation. If there is a conversation about “politics”, it is likely to be about much more arcane, disciplinary arguments, about what specialization or methodology a person uses. I’ve occasionally heard someone pronounce this or that methodology or form of scholarship “reactionary”, but that’s a highly mobile epithet and can be applied to almost anything, including ideas and forms of practice that are highly, intensely leftist on the general map of American political life. To ask whether someone was a “Democrat” or even a “leftist” or “liberal” (or “conservative”) in a discussion of hiring would be like confessing that you’re the village idiot—it would seem a hopelessly unsophisticated way of thinking.</p>

<ol>
<li>On the other hand, collegiality is a powerful cultural force in many colleges and universities, and its stultifying or comforting effects (take your pick) often have nothing to do with politics in any sense. A conservative or libertarian who is a mensch about his or her views and research may well be admired, even beloved, by liberal or left colleagues, and fondly regarded as valuable because of their views. On the other hand, someone like Daniel Pipes who is running around picking broad-brush fights with everyone whom he perceives as a bad academic, usually based on a paper-thin reading of their syllabi or even just the titles of their research, is going to be loathed, but as much for his behavior as his political views. A liberal or leftist who plays Stalinist Truth Squad in the same way is going to be equally loathed and avoided. I’ve seen departments where everyone treats a particular person as a “politicized” pariah even though the political views of that person are exactly the same as the general distribution in the department, and it’s entirely about strident, personally confrontational, abrasive, self-aggrandizing behavior. Now it may be that conservatives, having been sneered at, are more inclined, almost out of necessity, to go on the offensive, and create a feedback loop in the process. But the mode of action is more important than the views.

</li>
</ol>