An Email Exchange With A Columbia Law School Professor, Part I

Earlier this month Nicholas Kristof, liberal writer at the New York Times, wrote a piece discussing the lack of ideological diversity in academia. Citing four different studies, he said that the percentage of Republicans in the humanities is from 6% to 11%, and in the social sciences from 7% to 9%. But 18% in the social sciences identify as Marxists.

Said Kristof: "When perspectives are unrepresented in discussions, when some kind of thinkers aren't at the table, classrooms become echo chambers rather than sounding boards - and we all lose." Not all Times readers agreed, and this past Sunday the Times printed several letters disagreeing with Kristof. One letter writer, William H. Simon, a professor at Columbia Law School, disagreed with Kristof. What follows below is Professor Simon's letter, and our subsequent email exchange.

Professor Simon: "Nicholas Kristof exaggerates the problem of liberal bias in the academy. It is not the job of the university to represent all the views held in the surrounding society. The commitment to critical inquiry requires it to disfavor some views based on religious dogma, social convention or superstition. The goal of a community of mutual respect requires it to disfavor others, including those that are explicitly racist, misogynist or homophobic. Such views can be expressed in the university, but it is not a cause for concern that academics do not espouse them in their teaching and research. Much of the disparity between views in the academy and in the Republican Party is attributable to their varying social bases. Academics tend to be educated and middle class. The current Republican Party is constituted disproportionately of the undereducated and the wealthy.

That education leads people to different views is neither surprising nor, on its face, disturbing. And if it is a problem that the views of rich people are underrepresented in the academy, they have had little trouble making up for this disadvantage in the media and the political system."

The Truth-Uncensored: "Clearly, you have impressive credentials: Princeton undergrad, Harvard Law, professor at Columbia Law. Sadly, you do not come across as one might expect with those credentials. As a conservative, I am used to being called all sorts of derogatory names, much as you have done. As an aside, my credentials are not as impressive: Rutgers undergrad and UCLA Law. Also, I work in the real world, representing injured workers in workers compensation claims.

I find it disappointing that the argumentative style of many on the left is simple name calling. Oppose abortion? You hate women. Oppose gay marriage? Hate gays and are homophobic. Oppose open borders? Racist, hate Latinos. Do not wish to remake the world economy based on some warming? Anti-scientific. Favor Israel over the Palestinians? Colonialist. I could go on, but I know you get the point.

Some in the the mainstream papers, such as the NYT, engage in these tactics. Some in academia engage in this tactic. And, not surprisingly, those liberals with whom I speak, including other attorneys who should know how to debate an issue, often use the same tactic. So, if I may ask, what makes one racist to you? Oppose Obama's policies? Believe that all lives matter? What constitutes misogyny to you? Opposing abortion? Not believing the government should dictate salaries in the private sector? Homophobia? If one opposes gay marriage? I do. Yet, I have two cousins who are gay and I actually communicate with them - and they with me.

Academics tend to be educated and Republicans uneducated? Are you referring to formal education? There are people I know with not nearly as much formal education as you and I have who have other things going for them - good values and common sense. So what about Republicans who have the requisite formal education? Would you bar them from academia? Based on what?

"Education leads people to different views..." I agree. The propaganda (you call it education) that one gets at many colleges and universities does lead to different views. This might be why polls show that young people are no particular fans of the First Amendment. But, it makes sense. Once you decide that those with a different viewpoint are bigots, racists, homophobic, etc., then why should they be given the opportunity to speak? Are you concerned that young people would ban what would otherwise be considered constitutionally protected speech? Are you concerned that the university today is one of the least diverse places in America, in terms of beliefs? Are you concerned that college students need "safe places" when they might be exposed to a differing viewpoint? Which is not a luxury youth serving in the military get to have.

When the Mayor of NYC, along with other mayors across the country, seeks to prevent Chick-Fil-A from doing business in his city - or at least hopes to prevent them from being successful - are you in agreement? Are you not disturbed that such an attitude is totally unAmerican? Or, do you believe that all applications for business licenses should ask the prospective licensees if they believe in abortion, gay marriage, global warming, etc? Now, we have an admitted socialist running as a major party candidate for president. Young people favor him, not knowing that capitalism has provided more wealth to more people than any other system in the history of the world. I wonder how they'll get the latest updates to their iPhones without capitalism.

Thankfully, some of my liberal friends are actually able to engage in intelligent debate. Those who call names or have no intellectual honesty I tend to avoid. I look forward to any comments that you may wish to make in reply.

P.S. If you are so inclined to read another viewpoint, I write a conservative political blog at: http://www.truth-uncensored.blogspot.com"