No American institution has embraced cultural and demographic diversity more than the academy, and nowhere with greater enthusiasm than in the social sciences. Universities differ in many ways, as do their psychology departments, but all celebrate diversity. Substantial efforts are devoted to attract demographically diverse faculty and students, integrate culturally diverse content throughout the curriculum, provide diversity-related programming, and encourage researchers to be culturally competent.
Yet, we do not take the same steps to diversify the faculty politically or ensure that diverse sociopolitical viewpoints are represented in the curriculum and research. Up to 33% of academic psychologists freely admit to discriminatory practices against those with whom they differ politically (Inbar & Lammers Reference Inbar and Lammers2012), and studies reveal substantial bias against politically conservative students, professors, and policy perspectives. Conservative students and faculty (what few there are) perceive the academy as “appropriate for and welcoming of people with broadly liberal political sensibilities and as inappropriate for conservatives” (Gross & Fosse Reference Gross and Fosse2012, p. 155). If this climate existed with respect to people of color, it would give rise to a successful class action suit for racial discrimination (Tetlock Reference Tetlock2012).
Unfortunately, sociopolitical bias remains one of the last acceptable forms of prejudice in the academy (and beyond) (see Jussim Reference Jussim2012a). In describing how academic psychology has become increasingly non-diverse politically, and the many ways in which this skews and impedes policy-relevant psychological science, Duarte et al. have diagnosed the discipline's Achilles heel. Ideas are what universities and academic psychology are all about. Why have we not embraced intellectual diversity on social and political issues?
The arguments favoring sociopolitical diversity, each of which is supported by a compelling body of research findings, are identical to those for demographic/cultural diversity:
-
1. When a diversity of viewpoints and life experiences is represented among the faculty and student body, it benefits teaching, learning, and research. (Indeed, demographic diversity is seen as instrumental in achieving the educational benefits that flow from cultural and viewpoint diversity; see Grutter v. Bollinger 2003.)
-
2. The sociopolitical values and demographic/cultural backgrounds of faculty and students are often central to their personal identity.
-
3. Discrimination in hiring and professional relationships due to differences in sociopolitical values is as insidious today as is discrimination on the basis of demographic differences (Redding Reference Redding2012).
We ought, therefore, to value and promote sociopolitical diversity with the same vigor as we do demographic/cultural diversity. We should give voice to those sociopolitical identities outside the mainstream of academic life and research paradigms, remedy discrimination against those having such identities and their feeling of isolation in the academy (which makes them reluctant to manifest their sociopolitical identity in academic life and professional activities), and engage a range of sociopolitical ideas in our scholarly perspectives and teaching.
There is, of course, a fourth argument – the need for social justice – which undergirds demographic diversity but is thought inapplicable to sociopolitical diversity, since political conservatives have not been a disadvantaged group in society. Yet, conservatives are marginalized and vastly under-represented within psychological science. Perhaps, then, we should strive for fairer treatment and greater representation of conservatives so that they are not implicitly or explicitly discriminated against in graduate admissions, hiring and promotion, the peer-review process, and departmental and university life generally (see Inbar & Lammers Reference Inbar and Lammers2012; Redding Reference Redding2012). Duarte et al. explain how doing so will benefit the profession and society by producing a more robust, open, and creative psychological science that is informed and tested through a multiplicity of sociopolitical paradigms. Not only do political minorities bring diverse perspectives, but their presence has a de-biasing and net-widening effect on the rest of the scientific community (see Page Reference Page2009).
As for the somewhat self-serving and circular claim that the academy's research perspectives and findings are liberal because liberal ideas are necessarily the correct ones, the available empirical evidence refutes the notion that there are differences between liberals and conservatives in intelligence (see sect. 5.1 in the target article), in academic ability (see Redding Reference Redding2012), or in the quality of their information processing or degree of cognitive bias when they evaluate research findings and policy questions (Kahan Reference Kahan2013). Conservatives tend to be somewhat less open to experience (Jost et al. Reference Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski and Sulloway2003) than liberals, but this does not mean that their policy preferences are inferior. More to the point, consider the strong empirical evidence that ideological biases unavoidably influence research agendas, paradigms, and methods, as well as the interpretation of findings and how they are used or not used to support policy preferences. Consider also how psychological science has been shaped (Kahan Reference Kahan2013; MacCoun Reference MacCoun1998; Redding Reference Redding2001; Reference Redding2013; Tetlock Reference Tetlock2012) by, among other things, “the embedding of liberal values into research questions and methods” (target article, Abstract).
It is inescapable human nature to approach value-laden issues, whether in research, teaching, or professional practice from the perspective of one's own sociopolitical lens. (If most psychologists were conservative, the profession surely would be captured by conservative ideas and sensibilities.) Since psychology faculties are not socio-politically diverse, it comes as no surprise that their research on policy-relevant topics also lacks diversity. Researchers are human beings (!) who cannot help but be influenced by the views they hold on the topics they investigate. This is why the de-biasing efforts that Duarte et al. suggest, while very useful, alone will not solve the problem.
Fundamentally, the only way to achieve sociopolitical diversity in research and teaching is to diversify who is on the faculty, by fostering a climate that is welcoming of multiple sociopolitical voices and thereby encourages non-liberal individuals to pursue careers in academic psychology, and through outreach efforts to hire them onto our faculties (see the target article; Redding Reference Redding2012). We should not want sociopolitical uniformity on social science faculties, especially since sociopolitical perspectives are an important component of culture and, therefore, of cultural diversity. If we want our universities and psychology department to be places that respect and truly engage diverse ideas, rather than doing so almost exclusively from one political vantage point, diversifying the faculty ideologically is the only way to achieve sociopolitical inclusiveness and heal psychology's Achilles heel.
No American institution has embraced cultural and demographic diversity more than the academy, and nowhere with greater enthusiasm than in the social sciences. Universities differ in many ways, as do their psychology departments, but all celebrate diversity. Substantial efforts are devoted to attract demographically diverse faculty and students, integrate culturally diverse content throughout the curriculum, provide diversity-related programming, and encourage researchers to be culturally competent.
Yet, we do not take the same steps to diversify the faculty politically or ensure that diverse sociopolitical viewpoints are represented in the curriculum and research. Up to 33% of academic psychologists freely admit to discriminatory practices against those with whom they differ politically (Inbar & Lammers Reference Inbar and Lammers2012), and studies reveal substantial bias against politically conservative students, professors, and policy perspectives. Conservative students and faculty (what few there are) perceive the academy as “appropriate for and welcoming of people with broadly liberal political sensibilities and as inappropriate for conservatives” (Gross & Fosse Reference Gross and Fosse2012, p. 155). If this climate existed with respect to people of color, it would give rise to a successful class action suit for racial discrimination (Tetlock Reference Tetlock2012).
Unfortunately, sociopolitical bias remains one of the last acceptable forms of prejudice in the academy (and beyond) (see Jussim Reference Jussim2012a). In describing how academic psychology has become increasingly non-diverse politically, and the many ways in which this skews and impedes policy-relevant psychological science, Duarte et al. have diagnosed the discipline's Achilles heel. Ideas are what universities and academic psychology are all about. Why have we not embraced intellectual diversity on social and political issues?
The arguments favoring sociopolitical diversity, each of which is supported by a compelling body of research findings, are identical to those for demographic/cultural diversity:
1. When a diversity of viewpoints and life experiences is represented among the faculty and student body, it benefits teaching, learning, and research. (Indeed, demographic diversity is seen as instrumental in achieving the educational benefits that flow from cultural and viewpoint diversity; see Grutter v. Bollinger 2003.)
2. The sociopolitical values and demographic/cultural backgrounds of faculty and students are often central to their personal identity.
3. Discrimination in hiring and professional relationships due to differences in sociopolitical values is as insidious today as is discrimination on the basis of demographic differences (Redding Reference Redding2012).
We ought, therefore, to value and promote sociopolitical diversity with the same vigor as we do demographic/cultural diversity. We should give voice to those sociopolitical identities outside the mainstream of academic life and research paradigms, remedy discrimination against those having such identities and their feeling of isolation in the academy (which makes them reluctant to manifest their sociopolitical identity in academic life and professional activities), and engage a range of sociopolitical ideas in our scholarly perspectives and teaching.
There is, of course, a fourth argument – the need for social justice – which undergirds demographic diversity but is thought inapplicable to sociopolitical diversity, since political conservatives have not been a disadvantaged group in society. Yet, conservatives are marginalized and vastly under-represented within psychological science. Perhaps, then, we should strive for fairer treatment and greater representation of conservatives so that they are not implicitly or explicitly discriminated against in graduate admissions, hiring and promotion, the peer-review process, and departmental and university life generally (see Inbar & Lammers Reference Inbar and Lammers2012; Redding Reference Redding2012). Duarte et al. explain how doing so will benefit the profession and society by producing a more robust, open, and creative psychological science that is informed and tested through a multiplicity of sociopolitical paradigms. Not only do political minorities bring diverse perspectives, but their presence has a de-biasing and net-widening effect on the rest of the scientific community (see Page Reference Page2009).
As for the somewhat self-serving and circular claim that the academy's research perspectives and findings are liberal because liberal ideas are necessarily the correct ones, the available empirical evidence refutes the notion that there are differences between liberals and conservatives in intelligence (see sect. 5.1 in the target article), in academic ability (see Redding Reference Redding2012), or in the quality of their information processing or degree of cognitive bias when they evaluate research findings and policy questions (Kahan Reference Kahan2013). Conservatives tend to be somewhat less open to experience (Jost et al. Reference Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski and Sulloway2003) than liberals, but this does not mean that their policy preferences are inferior. More to the point, consider the strong empirical evidence that ideological biases unavoidably influence research agendas, paradigms, and methods, as well as the interpretation of findings and how they are used or not used to support policy preferences. Consider also how psychological science has been shaped (Kahan Reference Kahan2013; MacCoun Reference MacCoun1998; Redding Reference Redding2001; Reference Redding2013; Tetlock Reference Tetlock2012) by, among other things, “the embedding of liberal values into research questions and methods” (target article, Abstract).
It is inescapable human nature to approach value-laden issues, whether in research, teaching, or professional practice from the perspective of one's own sociopolitical lens. (If most psychologists were conservative, the profession surely would be captured by conservative ideas and sensibilities.) Since psychology faculties are not socio-politically diverse, it comes as no surprise that their research on policy-relevant topics also lacks diversity. Researchers are human beings (!) who cannot help but be influenced by the views they hold on the topics they investigate. This is why the de-biasing efforts that Duarte et al. suggest, while very useful, alone will not solve the problem.
Fundamentally, the only way to achieve sociopolitical diversity in research and teaching is to diversify who is on the faculty, by fostering a climate that is welcoming of multiple sociopolitical voices and thereby encourages non-liberal individuals to pursue careers in academic psychology, and through outreach efforts to hire them onto our faculties (see the target article; Redding Reference Redding2012). We should not want sociopolitical uniformity on social science faculties, especially since sociopolitical perspectives are an important component of culture and, therefore, of cultural diversity. If we want our universities and psychology department to be places that respect and truly engage diverse ideas, rather than doing so almost exclusively from one political vantage point, diversifying the faculty ideologically is the only way to achieve sociopolitical inclusiveness and heal psychology's Achilles heel.