I've written a lot on this site about how the label "conservative" is used in the softer academic disciplines as a shaming and norming device. I've noted, too, how often that label is utterly unmoored from anything like an actual description of an individual's politics--you don't have to be a Republican, or deeply religious, to be labelled conservative in academe. All you have to be is different from, or skeptical of, the prevailing political, ideological, and social norms. Because of this, to be labelled "conservative" by a professor or by a colleague is often a damning and devastating event--it is an isolating move on the part of the labellers, and it tends to be used as a form of moral castigation, a way of signalling that the person so labelled is deficient in character. Needless to say, the label is thus also professionally damaging--so much so that it can even be used to explain away or even justify an individual's professional struggles. The conservative label can be used to blame as well as shame.

In response to my Tuesday post asking readers to describe their experiences of academic shaming, I received a note that demonstrates how this works:

I was on the job market ABD a few years ago in theology, applied to a school, and didn't get the job. One of my professors in my home department had worked at that school, and I asked her if she could tell me anything constructive about why I didn't get the job. She called me into her office and told me that it was because I was "too conservative." Try as I might to figure out how this awful fact would have come out over the course of the interview, I couldn't remember. The professor I spoke with, by the way, is the resident shrill feminist in the department. She had been on my comps committee and had been quite supportive, and I had prided myself on my ability to get along with her. Now I avoid her.

I have to say, that's one fine piece of shaming. It's also a fine illustration of how shameless are those who take it upon themselves--always in the name of being constructive--to shame others.

Thanks for writing. Readers remain invited to share their own stories of shaming and being shamed in the groves of academe.

Conservative means something quite different in theology -- it refers to the extent you embrace a certain set of beliefs about the faith -- i.e. that the bible is literally true, that the accounts of creation must be taken as literal and not metaphors, and so on.

It works both ways. The Moody Bible Institute will not hire someone who believe scripture is is not to be taken literally.

Carrying over allegations of bias to theology is tricky; just because you have a phd in the field from a catholic institution does not mean that you are qualified to teach in a protestant one; personal beliefs do matter.

another fine illustration...

Unless there's something in the context that you've left out, that isn't a particularly damning quote. It was a useful, constructive criticism, and rather than avoiding it, the person ought to embrace it.

As you note, the term has nothing to do with politics. It has everything to do with attitude towards the discipline. In academe we value new ideas and insights: being 'conservative', simply reaffirming what has been said before, is not particularly useful. The fact that this advisor was supportive before suggests that she found something valuable in the work, so what she was really doing was encouraging this person to be bold and talk up what was novel and challenging more.

I've been in the same position. I would tell students going on job talks to avoid being 'conservative' (although I don't know if I used that exact word), because what the interviewers want to see is what sets the student apart, not how well he or she can parrot their advisor's point of view.

So... you're saying that novelty for the sake of novelty is a great thing? That's a pretty shallow basis for extending a field. One can admit that what came before was correct, and one is simply extending further in that direction. Just saying "Man, that's =so= 1960s, let's get with the present. Time for new truths!" The sciences seem to be fine with admitting that research that came before has value; in math, sometimes one looks up 19th century papers for perspective. Just because something is old does not mean it has no value.

"Conservative" might not mean you're an old fuddy-duddy who will just read old books and say "thumbs up". It is very likely to mean that the current faculty do not like their assumptions being challenged. "Conservative" may indeed mean an overturning of the status quo.

In any case, by keeping people with the "wrong ideas" out, these departments simply reduce their own intellectual depth. It could also be a case of the committee simply not liking a candidate's "vibes". There's a wealth of grad students out there, pre- and post-doc, and those in the humanities tend not to have much of a lucrative career in the private sector to pull them away. Hiring committees, for now, have the ability to be as capricious as they wish in picking candidates. It won't last forever, though. The info will come down through the ranks about just how likely one will get a position, and some will opt not to go to grad school at all.

"Conservative" actually means a person who resists change, or who at least insists that those who propose change need to carry the burden of proof. It seems to me that many "progressive" academics *are* conservatives when it comes to the institutional under which they live, although they would never accept this description.

Conservative? Heck, they're Tories...every bit as much as an English land owner circa 1800.

Never been called conservative--not that word by itself, anyway. Usually, though, I just ignore it and get on with my work. After a while, my peers who call me a (expletive deleted) conservative will just leave me alone and forget that they called me that in the first place. Then again, I'm thinking about looking for work in religious private colleges, instead of the public ones where that matters...

"In academe we value new ideas and insights"...is that really true? Seems to me that "new ideas and insights" are frequently valued only to the extent that they are in line with the ideas and insights of those who hold the dominant positions in the discipline.

It's like a dysfunctional corporation that manufactures only steam turbines, and in which the top executives are all steam-turbine people. If you come to them with an idea for incremental enhancements in the existing product line, they will applaud you...if you suggest that steam turbines will be supplanted by something else someday, you will be declared a heretic.

I'm intrigued at the manner in which this anecdote is viewed as a blank slate for preconceived ideas. We do not know the reality here, and the argument that Erin presents is baseless, given the available data. As Erin points out, "conservative" can mean many things, but she then assumes only one meaning.

While I was completing my coursework I had a run in with a member of the faculty at my university who thought I was conservative. This professor argued incessantly that there is no such things as art, and went from there with a line of thinking that most people in English departments will be familiar with.

One day in class I suggested that there was in fact something called art, and that I and many of my fellow students were interested in studying this rather than writing papers about the way in which cultural criticism can effect social change.

Now, you can agree or disagree with this view, of course. As far as I knew at that time, academia was this space in which ideas were exchanged and debated freely -- so why not talk it up? Not so, apparently. For in response to my comments this professor said, simply, "you really are a dead white male."

This sort of thing is far to common in academia. Erin and others are exactly right when they say that new ideas are accepted only when they fit in with the ruling model of thought. Anyone who dares to do work that doesn't fit is ostracized in many, many ways.

As someone pointed out earlier, this posting is quite meaningless. The word "conservative" can have a plethora of meanings. Yet Erin pulls out one such meaning, and while acknowledging that it could have multiple possible meanings, starts harping on it. Of course, this is all quite apart from the traditional meaning of conservative, which is lost in U.S. discourse. Noam Chomsky, the great american intellectual, says with some bitterness, that he is perhaps one of the few conservatives (as traditionally understood) in this country.

As Erin points out, "conservative" can mean many things, but she then assumes only one meaning.

Agreed, but -- "The professor I spoke with, by the way, is the resident shrill feminist in the department. She had been on my comps committee and had been quite supportive, and I had prided myself on my ability to get along with her. Now I avoid her."

To me, that does tend to support Erin's interpretation over other possibilities.

So what else is new? Sometimes you get the job and sometimes you don't.

You know, maybe such a bias really exists and maybe it doesn't; personally, I have no idea.

I do not have an advanced degree and I do not work in academia. Whether or not my views on something would be called "conservative" or not depends somewhat on 1) the subject and 2) who is deciding. But when I walk into a job interview, I can tell within, say, about one minute whether or not I have a chance. And obviously it does not have much to do with my qualifications -- presumably they were deemed good enough to get me invited for the interview. No, the deciding factor always seems to be how well I hit it off, face to face, with the people I speak with. So naturally I wonder how often such a personality mismatch (as perceived by interviewers) is mistaken for, or spun as, some sort of political bias, when maybe the simple truth is they talked to someone whose qualifications were just as good as yours and whom they just plain liked better. Perhaps it is in a way comforting to blame such a rejection on politics rather than personality? Or can the two be so easily separated?

Lastly, please don't take this the wrong way and get all bothered, but I will conclude with a remark I made earlier on another site: self-anointed "conservatives" are getting as bad as Jews in the way they seem a little too ready to whine about how other people are so mean to them. At times it seems like sort of a weird martyr complex. Or something.

I think rather than avoiding the professor the student should seek clarification. I suspect that the opposition the professor was working with was more conservative-theoretical than conservative-liberal. Being in the same situation (ABD and looking for jobs) I understand the desire to overinterpret every pronouncement from your committee members. However, given the dynamics of hiring committees and the struggles that go on to find consensus candidates, it would appear far more likely that some other candidate was chosen for being more innovative. Having obtained an on campus interview should suggest however, that the student's letters are strong and that the faculty really does support her. If they wanted to sabotage her they would have just written poor letters like everybody else does. Encouraging her to think that the problem is her secret shame of being politically conservative does the student no favors whatsoever.

I don't doubt there is a bias against political conservatives in the humanities, though it co-exists with a strong bias FOR institutional conservatives. It's OK to hate Bush and all the dead white males, but do not question the way universities conduct themselves (abuse of adjuncts, etc.). The cliche about this is "Left Talking, Right Living." Criticize things that have no bearing on your superiors' privileges and you'll be OK in the academy.

On the other hand, there are so many people competing for entry-level academic jobs in the humanities that its possible to second-guess anything in the hiring process. I remember attempting to assess the political views of everyone I met by things like clothing, office decor, general mien and body language. Personality IS political when you are a desperate job-seeker.

Job candidates live in fear of the familiar, sour, false smile and handshake at the end of most interviews. "Was it something I said?" Probably. Because 90% of interviewers don't read anything besides your letter and CV, and they are looking for little more than people who mirror their undisclosed prejudices.

Being conservative within the humanities is like being gay in a Bible-belt town. You are viewed as immoral and perverted, and as a threat to decent society. So, once I had been "outed," I refused to accept the shame, and became pretty damn shameless about my conservatism, and did my best to point out to the silly radicals around me just how open-minded they *weren't*. The nice thing is that, although I was often out-numbered, most of the radicals around me had surrounded themselves with people who think just like themselves, so they were unable to engage in real debate, therefore it was fun taking them down a peg in front of others. I liked to think of myself as Henry V at Agincourt.....

They can only shame you if you let them.

Of course, I will surely never work in academia, but I have long since decided I don't want to.

"Being conservative within the humanities is like being gay in a Bible-belt town." Yes, though analogies also come to mind:

It's like being Jewish in the university of the 1920's. It's also like being a freemason in 18th-century France -- in both cases, one's life chances depend very much on dissembling.

I think it's worth pointing out that "conservative" doesn't mean "Republican" or even necessarily "politically conservative" in an academic context. Maybe we need a new and more accurate label for people who chafe against many tenets of academic dogma, among them certain assumptions about speech codes, "sensitivity" training, or the increasing goofiness of some scholarship in the humanities.

Many people who are otherwise liberal and/or Democrats have problems with the cultic nature of academia, too. Self-identified "conservatives" alienate these vital allies at their peril.

So half-baked Marxism is now the hallmark of "new ideas and insights?" I don't think anyone on the left has had an interesting new idea in 75 years.

A couple of years I was in an honors English class. Three days a week were subjected to lectures on existentialism and post-modern b.s. It didn't matter what text was being studied: "Do you see, people? We live life in a box. In a box!"

So, at the end of the semester, students were invited to read favorite passages from books they particularly enjoyed. One student read a passage of C.S. Lewis.

The professor's comment: "What a load of propoganda!" And then the professor spend a few minutes verbally kicking the poor student around simply because offered - without any of her own commentary - a little C.S. Lewis.

The thing is, he had a semester with us to know who he was dealing with, and he knew she couldn't defend herself on the stump like that. Very shameful, that bit of shaming.

"self-anointed "conservatives" are getting as bad as Jews in the way they seem a little too ready to whine about how other people are so mean to them. At times it seems like sort of a weird martyr complex. Or something."

Yeah, all those synagogue torchings and beatings in France and Belgium - the worst since 1938 - are just our imagination. The fact that in the US there are still more incidents of anti-Jewish vandalism and violence than anti-Black or anti-Muslim, and that all three declined last year but the anti-Jewish acts declined the least (according to the FBI anyway). The persistent for decades vilification and demonization of Israel in the UN, not visited on any other country, even those with much worse human rights records.....

Nothing to see here, folks, move right along.....

"Many people who are otherwise liberal and/or Democrats have problems with the cultic nature of academia, too. Self-identified "conservatives" alienate these vital allies at their peril."

Self-identified liberals alienate fellow liberals all the time. I have noticed lately that if you were for the Iraq war, you are labelled a "conservative," whether or not you are also for gay rights, abortion rights, the environment, legalizing drugs, or any other liberal position. You are also assumed to be Republican. Likewise a liberal who is concerned about cultish academia is labelled a "conservative."

"The persistent for decades vilification and demonization of Israel in the UN, not visited on any other country"

Try South Africa. The parallels between the two cases are quite striking.

' "The persistent for decades vilification and demonization of Israel in the UN, not visited on any other country"

Try South Africa. The parallels between the two cases are quite striking.'

Why is only Israel vilified for defending itself? SA was not, and no one wanted to push the Afrikaaners into the sea. While I'm sure you don't want to turn this into a forum for ME issues, I do find it interesting that the Academe is in addition to being more liberal is also in general far more anti-Israel than the country as a whole.

I once put on a University concert of Holocaust music including composers by such Jewish folk as Messaien and Lutoslawski, only to be told that the concert was a bit 'too jewish.'I realize that's just one anecdote, but I was also raised academically in the Bay Area which might color my view.

Finally, to add to the metaphor, the above arguments about the meaning of the word conservative are a bit like arguing about the meaning of the word anti-semitic. Those arguments are disingenuous in the context given.

I'm not whining, (or 'getting as bad as Jews'....wtf?) I'm just agreeing with the suggestion that there might be an academic political echo-chamber.

Wow. I'm always so hesitant to toss into this mix.

1. The Jewish comment above, the one saying "don't be offended, but..." was akin to the one made recently by the Dallas football coach who began, "no offense to Orientals, but..." Pandora's box, indeed. I have no argument. I agree and disagree all around. But mostly, I have no response to such a bullshit thing to say.

2. When I was in grad school, there were a few (two in particular) cranky old white men who sat on their high horses, afraid of any new approach to anything. One said flat out that feminist and post-colonial readings of nineteenth century American Literature (he is one of the paragons of this) simply don't exist. Therefore, he gave crappy grades to students who chose these paths. Do I think academe is getting lost in its own asshole? Yes. And this is a devout liberal talking. So devout that I think it's our students' right to have the opportunity to approach literature in whatever manner they please -- "conservative" or not -- without being villified, as long as they adequately present their cases (isn't that, afterall, what the point is? To have students who think critically and can argue effectively?).

But I also don't think the old "conservatives," whatever that means, are dead and gone. I just think they're a different kind of all-messed-up, but they're still, well, all messed up.

I think 1st Lt. Mark V. Shaney USMC said it best when he said:

"Responsible journalism should include responsibility for one's actions in publishing a news story in such a way that puts many other people in harm's way; has a direct result of publication of a particular story might have on other people.

"We are a people that cherish the democratic system of government and therefore hold the will of the enemy is trying very hard to portray our efforts over here, you can refute them by knowing that we are failing, even if we are making the whole world safer. "

Raymond Onnar
And as always: "Quidquid excusatio prandium pro!

I'm a graduate student in English in a city where people are mostly liberal. I did my MA essay on religious conversion narratives--specifically, narratives by converts to Christianity in colonial India. I received a piece of hate e-mail after discussing my views on a graduate student department e-mail list, along with a series of abrasive e-mails from another graduate student who imagines herself a sort of Heroine of the Left.

I also worked with a professor who is anti-capitalist and whose face twitches when someone mentions that the critique might be missing a few key things. (Said professor responds by telling the student they are "naive," etc.)

That said, academia is not the only place where one must negotiate power relations in order to succeed. You will always face people with biases, people who think they know it all--people who won't want to work with you if they feel that your world view is inconsistent with their own. There are some strategic moves to make while in grad school to deal with this, including making sure you don't ask the Face Twitcher to be on your commitee, and to network while still in school to allow people to be familiar with your project and your research without making an ideologically driven condemnation of it.