Back in April, New York Times op-ed writer Paul Krugman attacked the popular notion that American universities are nests of liberals that continually reinforce a system of liberal teachings, pushing out and vilifying all-conservative political thought. Krugman shrewdly observed that the claims of liberal bias almost always focus on the humanities and social sciences, where judgments about what constitutes good scholarship can seem subjective to an outsider.
But he points to studies that find registered Republicans in the minority at elite universities and shows that Republicans are almost as rare in hard sciences like physics and in engineering departments as in softer fields. The reason he suggests for this skewed statistic? Today's Republican Party - increasingly dominated by people who believe truth should be determined by revelation, not research - doesn't respect science or scholarship in general. Therefore, he concludes, it shouldn't be surprising that scholars have returned the favor by losing respect for the Republican Party.
Tufts is certainly one place in which Krugman's theory pans out. Though the university touts itself as a diverse community where all viewpoints are respected equally, ask any member of the Tufts Republicans or The Primary Source staff if they feel that is the case and you are likely to get a cynical retort. It is not really the fault of the school administration. They select students of a certain academic profile, and I do not recall my political leanings ever being called into question in the application process.
If you buy into Krugman's view, it is not the administration's fault at all: the university system is inherently structured to favor liberals, just like conservatives outnumber liberals in the military by a wide margin. But Republicans are indeed marginalized and ostracized on campus, a fact which was never more apparent than during the road to the election last year. As a moderate, I believe that they certainly have valid opinions and the right to be heard, and that their sympathies should not be held against them as people. Moreover, and particularly at Tufts, they are not all dimwitted, moralistic Bible-bangers and military junkies.
But there is stark difference between expressing a political opinion, or even a politicized socioeconomic evaluation, and evaluating scientific data based on one's political values. The recent burst of vitriol over the topic of evolution in the classroom and the ever present debate on global warming are the poster children for conservative thinkers attempting to put a political stamp on purely scientific issues. This is not to say that all science is completely impartial. But if research were conducted purely to produce false data to support some vast conspiracy, as some Republican congressman have suggested regarding global warming, the whole scientific establishment would quickly collapse for lack of productivity.
As a Floridian, I can provide evidence that strongly indicates the reality of global warming: on Aug. 24, 1992 Miami was devastated by a powerful hurricane named Andrew. Note the date and the fact that, given the name, Andrew was the first storm of the season. It was also notable because it was the first storm of its power to strike Florida in nearly 30 years, and the third category five storm in history, to that point, to strike the U.S. east coast. Thirteen years later, nearly to the day, Miami was again impacted, this time by Hurricane Katrina, the 11th storm of the season. Katrina is the 7th hurricane to impact Florida in only the past two years, many of which have been categories four or five, including Katrina itself as it smashed into Louisiana. You can guess why these storms have become more frequent, and worse, more powerful.
Rather than take steps to combat global warming, which would admittedly have a high economic cost, Republicans would rather debate endlessly whether the phenomenon even exists in the first place. It is not a question of having one's opinions accepted; it is a matter of one's opinion being discredited by hard facts. But the modern Republicans, or at least the segment of the party currently in fashion with the executive administration, seem to believe that belief and conviction can trump facts. Krugman is right on point when he says that this, more than anything else, explains why a liberal bias dominates universities.
So before we jump into yet another academic year of debate in our school press between the huge left and the tiny right, remember why the dialogue at Tufts, or any other university, seems so one-sided. You can believe all you want that things in Iraq are going well and that temperatures around the earth are just in the midst of an abnormal but natural spike, but no strength of conviction can change the facts. And I for one am sick of the constant tropical storms back home and this awful war overseas. The sooner the Republicans take a more pragmatic approach and let their otherwise valid opinions be supported by objective facts, the sooner you will see ideological balance return to our institutions of higher learning, and perhaps even some logic in our foreign and environmental policy.
Carlson is a senior majoring in International Relations and Biotechnology.
