Fact: Academicians tend to be politically differentiated according to discipline, with those in the social sciences and humanities on the left, those in the natural sciences in the middle, and those in engineering and business on the right.
Argument: This is no coincidence. Academia – at least the social science and humanities sectors thereof, is biased against conservatives. Hence their underrepresentation.
Counterargument: Agreed: It’s not a coincidence. But the operative force is self-selection, not discrimination.
Status: The debate rages, generating more heat than light. (Here is an overview of one pertinent study.)
Fact: College students also tend to be politically differentiated according to discipline, with those in the social sciences and humanities on the left, those in the natural sciences in the middle, and those in engineering and business on the right.
Argument: This is no coincidence. Students’ political attitudes are being shaped by their professors.
Counterargument: Agreed. It’s not a coincidence. But the operative force is self-selection, not socialization.
Status: Much research has been undertaken, but few systematic attempts have been made to sort out socialization and self-selection effects.
A recent study by Mark Elchardus and Bram Spruyt (gated; abstract here) brings new data to bear on the sources of change in college students’ political attitudes. Elchardus and Spruyt surveyed a cohort of students entering college in Belgium in 2001 and reinterviewed them almost four years later; they also interviewed successive cohorts of entering students. The students answered batteries of questions pertaining to equality and redistribution (the “old cleavage”) and to a broad ethnocentrism/authoritarianism/anti-politics dimension (the “new cleavage”).
Data from the surveys of each year’s entering class clearly established that positions on the “old cleavage” were strongly related to choice of academic disciplines; because these were students who had not yet begun their college careers, these differences point toward self-selection, not socialization effects. Differences on the “new cleavage” were also strong in most entering classes.
The 2001-2004/5 panel of students posed the crucial test for socialization effects. Some slight effects did emerge, but they paled in comparison to those for self-selection. So: strong and fairly consistent self-selection effects, and weak to non-existent socialization effects. Not a definitive set of results of course, but more grist for the mill or, if you will, fuel for the fire.
Academicians in a wide array of fields have to adopt some position on the extent to which they give voice in the classroom to their own political views. This issue is especially crucial for political scientists. Could it be, though, that our hand-wringing about these matters is overwrought? If Elchardus and Spruyt are right, then whatever political attitudes we’re conveying to our students may not be having any great effect anyway, beyond reinforcing attitudes they brought with them when they enrolled.