hspder,
I think there is definitely SOME self-selection going on whereby conservatives “opt out” of careers in academia – but I just don’t think it can explain the level of disparity in some departments (particularly the soft and squishy humanities and some of the soft sciences).
Here’s an excerpt from another law prof who looked at the underlying study and specifically addresses self-selection (he writes well and he’s already gone through the trouble of putting it all down, so here ya go):
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_08_28-2005_09_03.shtml#1125339674
EXCERPT:
The authors also claim, “It is difficult even to imagine ideological discrimination occurring at the point of hiring.” This naivete again demonstrates the authors blind spot occasioned by their own narrow world view. There are a multitude of ways in which ideological discrimination manifests itself in hiring. The most obvious is simply the degree of skepticism that incumbent faculty apply to a given scholar’s work. If they disagree with the ideological conclusions of the work, they approach it with greater skepticism and a higher burden of proof, and thereby it is easier to conclude that the analysis is flawed or incomplete. Again, this difference is reflected in the fact that the more subjective subjects (Philosophy, History, English, etc.) have greater ideological disparities than less-subjective subjects where standards of scholarly rigor are better-established and have an independent integrity that separate the craftsmanship of the field from the conclusions. (Some have observed that within political science itself, for instance, the more scientific quantative researchers have less ideological bias as well because of the indepdent standards of analysis applied there: Campus bias (Signifying Nothing: how does saying nothing at all become so loud?) ) Other biases easily creep in as well–does the candidate do work that is “relevant” to the interests of the department, “collegiality,” or common research interests. To say that “it is difficult to see how ideological bias” could creep into hiring is simply naive and perhaps just evidences the lack of self-awareness by the researchers themselves.
Even if this is self-selection, this is not necessarily responsive–when the elite academy is confronted with other examples of “underrepresented” interests, they do not simply throw up their hands and complain of a shallow talent pool. Instead, at Columbia for instance, the diversity committee ( Columbia News ) is “tasked with finding ways to strengthen the pipeline bringing women and minority students into the University’s undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral programs” and not merely take what the pipeline produces.
Based on my personal experience having known many bright students in many different fields (I meet many undergraduates and graduate students through IHS Seminars at which I lecture), I would say that if there is self-selection here, it is of precisely one type–libertarian and conservative students self-select out of pursuing an academic career because they are well aware of the political obstacles that will be placed in their way. They know that they will confront ideological bias at every stage of their careers–grad school, grad school mentoring to help get jobs, entry-level jobs, and tenure. Given the numbers reported by Klein and others, they are clearly acting rationally in refusing to invest 5 years of their lives to get a PhD to try to roll this stone up that hill.
Finally–and I’m less confident about this–conservatives may be disproportionately turned off by the fundamental “unseriousness” of the modern academy. Conservatives may simply prefer the real world, with its mechanisms of accountability, merits-based determinations, and focus on solving real problems. The emptiness and triviality of so much modern scholarship (especially in the humanities) and the marbeling of every element of academic culture with the burdens and distractions associated with running the modern university–political correctness and its restraints on free inquiry, the whole edifice of the diversity machine and all it carries with it. The upward struggle to persuade colleagues to judge job candidates fairly and on the merits, rather than through the ever-present lens of political orientation and identity/diversity politics.
So the self-selection, if there is one, may be more along the lines of Michael Barone’s distinction between “hard” and “soft” America–perhaps conservatives are more prone to self-select into the “hard” America of the private sector, where accountability is stronger and individuals are more likely to rise or fall on their own individual merits, rather than trying to survive in the bizarre ecosystem of the modern academy.
In conclusion let me add a thought–it seems utterly absurd that people are still making uninformed armchair speculation about the causes of the prevailing ideological imbalance in the academy. Is it self-selection? Conservatives are greedier? Conservatives are dumber? When it comes to addressing the issue of other “underrepresented minorities” on college campuses, the record overflows with high profile blue ribbon panels of leading scholars and administrators. No stone is left unturned and no penny left unspent to try to determine why women are “underrepresented” in teaching math and science, or the underrepresentation of minorities. I think maybe it is time to take even a small percentage of those tens of millions being spent at places like Harvard and Columbia and perhaps do a study of the causes of the ideological disparity in the academy, rather than simply speculate and pontificate. At the very least, such a study would eliminate some of the more preposterous hypotheses (such as the idea that conservatives generically like money more than liberals or that conservatives lack the intellecutal frame of mind to succeed in academia).