For 'tis the sport to have the enginer / Hoist with his owne petar

Kevin Drum shakes his head in wonder at Tom Smith's capacity to plumb the depths of the liberal psyche. I feel the same, for I myself have lately been the subject one of these displays of seemingly effortless insight. Mr. Smith is kind enough to deduce, on the basis of my statement that, "I myself don't subscribe to the 'conservatives are dumb' line that some favor," that I am - Mr. Smith is not completely clear about what I am, but it looks like I'm a pretty bad guy, so I'll just quote:

[UPDATE: Prof. Smith responds. I don't know why I called him Mr. Smith, rather than just Smith. Maybe, being a Matrix fan, I just like the sound. But I didn't call him prof. because I didn't realize he was one.]

I know I have made this point before, but let me just suggest a little method to philosophers and others in fields intellectually superior to us mere lawyers. A thought experiment. Try substituting "blacks" or "Jews" into your propositions about conservatives and just see how it sounds. "I personally don't subscribe to the view that blacks are stupider than other people . . ." Oh, you don't! Somebody call the NAACP! This man has an award coming! Or, "Jews are going to take over the world, so a little discrimination against them now won't do that much harm . . ." Careful with that one. Maybe you shouldn't cede ground to the Jews so easily. Give them an inch and they take a mile, you know

So far the left's position in this little internet kerfuffle over conservatives in the academy could be summed up almost fairly as, conservatives are wicked, and conservatives are stupid, and in any event, we don't discriminate against them, they just mysteriously choose not apply for jobs. . . I just have one question for you: Would you like ice in that mint julip, Massa?

By what infernal hermeneutical device is Mr. Smith so sure he is warranted in hinting I am the moral equivalent of a julip-sipping slave-owner, on the basis of my statement that I don't think conservatives are my intellectual inferiors? Is there some other formula I could have uttered - some way I could have expressed my belief that conservatives are deserving of my intellectual respect without having that statement twist nastily into its semantic opposite? (Or perhaps Mr. Smith knows me better than I know myself - well enough to know that, although I believe that I respect conservatives, I am a victim of false consciousness.) It's true that I don't think conservatives are my natural intellectual superiors. But, well, I'm sort of an old fashioned Millian liberal. Aren't I allowed?

Probably Smith will reply that really what bugs him is that it's hypocritical to be a lefty and unwilling to advocate affirmative action for conservatives, since we favor it for everyone else, don't we? Perhaps I can forgive the man for misunderstanding liberalism, or at least me, on this point - my post was indeed hastily composed. (On the other hand, if he really is psychic, Smith shouldn't be making mistakes like this. And if he isn't, he shouldn't be writing posts like his.) My reason for being dubious about all this is that I have strong libertarian leanings and have indeed resisted swooning into the arms of many an affirmative action proposal I've met. I believe the solution is not always for the government to put the clumsy smack down, nor should everyone just sue everyone else on sight. My concern about David Horowitz's Bill of Rights proposal is that it looks like a recipe for a perfect storm of frivolous lawsuits that would, at the very least, drive up the already high cost of education. In fact, I rather suspect this is the man's plan. One of those grand, 'destroy the university in order to save it'-type bright ideas. I'm really not ready to sign on until I'm reassured the document - whose ideals are all worthy - is legally toothless. And if you are wondering where I get these crazy, left-wingnut ideas, you can find them expressed in that commie pinko rag, Reason Magazine. I quote the wise words of comrade Jessie Walker:

There's no such thing as a perfectly balanced debate, and a heavy-handed effort to create one is more likely to chill speech than to encourage it. The most worrisome thing about Horowitz's group is the sneaking suspicion that that's exactly what they want.

Mr. Smith will probably now shift ground and say that it is still morally distasteful that I am so breezily sanguine about the sufferings of toiling conservatives. I watch their sweaty backs with smug indifference as they desperately fail to land academic posts, while I sip my julip on the porch of my office. Or else they fail to apply to grad school, and I murmur to patrician colleagues: 'The poor dears just are not drawn to the life of the mind. They prefer to live that way. Nothing can be done for them, I'm afraid.'

I could point out that only a few hours before attacking me for my failure to appreciate the inticacies of social justice, Mr. Smith himself penned a post containing the immortal line: "As to social responsibility: who cares about social responsibility?" But perhaps he will reply that, as a lefty, I am obliged to care and, as a righty, he is allowed not to care.

That's still a couple kinds of confused, if I make no mistake, but we'll stick with the post in question. It opens:

I can only say I am greatly relieved that this non-conservative academic [that would be me] is not very troubled about discrimination against conservatives in the academy. What with 9/11 and all that, there is all together too much anxiety in this world. It is a relief, a truly soothing realization, that liberals and others on the left are not racked with guilt, anxiety or that urge to do something, however awful the consequences, that so often arises in them when they see an injustice. As someone on the right, I am relieved personally, because if liberals thought something should be done about hiring more conservatives, they would come up with some policy that would discredit us and undermine us, all the more so because they were trying to help us.

OK, holding the thing together artificially just for the sake of analysis: I believe I detect a faint whiff of irony in the air, but - unless I am missing something - the butt of the joke is Smith not myself. Either he is really relieved by my attitude of unwillingness to advocate affirmative action for conservatives or he is not. I deduce from certain aspects of the tone of his post that he is not relieved. He is annoyed at me. But why? Because I regard the plight of Republicans who are unjustly mocked in front of their classmates by annoyingly self-righteous lefty profs as objectively less dire than the unjust fate of the victims of 9/11? Well, so I do. I do feel more sympathy for the victims of 9/11. Much more. I also think we should be doing a lot of things about terrorism, whereas I have my doubts about whether legal and governmental intervention is a good idea in the mocked Republicans case. Does Smith himself think, to the contrary, that Republicans who are mocked by annoying profs are MORE unfortunate than the victims of 9/11, that government resources should be channelled from fighting terrorism to fighting partisan academic snobbery and such, because the latter issue is MORE pressing? (Why do conservatives hate America so much?) Obviously Smith does not think this. I grant that he has a sense of moral proportion. Why, then, is he so annoyed at me for exhibiting a sense of moral proportion? Aren't I supposed to have one? In my post I freely grant that there is discrimination against conservatives AND that it is BAD, after all.

And while I'm on the subject of moral proportion, a nice way to screw up one's sense of it is to employ Mr. Smith's patented method of substituting in the words 'Jew' and 'black' at odd intervals. Conjuring the devils of Nazi genocide and slavery does not always clear the air. An example to illustrate. Take the statement: ' Professor P mocked the Republicans in his classes quite unjustifiably.' The way to gauge the seriousness of the problem, the degree of urgency and the necessity of redress, is not to change it into: 'Professor P killed the Jews in his classes quite unjustifiably.'

Here's my helpful hint for conservatives who want to vent effectively about the way they and their brethren are ill-treated in academia - for, indeed, they often are. So why not complain effectively? No reason. So learn how to conduct a decent petard hoist. That's it. Learn that one trick, stick to it, you just might go far.

Actually, when this whole conservatives in academe thing boiled out of Duke, courtesy of those voter registration-checking Republicans - and when the debate went the way it always does - well, I thought about certain wise words from a Welsh engineer:

To the mines! tell you the duke, it is not so good
to come to the mines; for, look you, the mines is
not according to the disciplines of the war: the
concavities of it is not sufficient; for, look you,
the athversary, you may discuss unto the duke, look
you, is digt himself four yard under the
countermines: by Cheshu, I think a' will plough up
all, if there is not better directions.

The man is right. The concavities. But I digress. Back to the proper technique for conducting a satisfactory petard hoist. You probably know this much about it from books. The fun of it - and it is fun - is blowing up the enemy with his own bomb. But - and this is important - if you are not outside the blast radius yourself, the whole comedic - not to say strategic - tenor of the situation is radically altered. It turns into one of those cartoons where the two characters are passing the fizzing stick of TNT back and forth. And then they are both black from head to toe with silly, blinking white eyes. I would say that Stanley Fish and David Horowitz are maybe about at this point, but I won't argue the case tonight. It would seem it is possible to go further ... what precedent from the ancients, what precedent? The proper way to conduct a petard hoist is not to ride the bomb yourself ... all the way down .. like Major Kong in Dr. Strangelove. That's not a petard hoist.

So what's the secret of doing it right? It's actually quite simple. You point out that anyone who did believe x (e.g. some flabby doctrine of diversity, conjoined with a knee-jerk impulse to implore the government to right all wrongs) would be committed to y (affirmative action for Republicans). If y is awkward or absurd or repugnant, there must be something wrong with x. So x is the bomb, and y is the blast. So don't go and talk yourself into half-believing the silly things yourself - getting your shorts in a twist about my failure to hop to it, social justice-wise - thereby effectively becoming the false-consciousness sniffing, minor greivance nursing, victimologist enemy you rightly despise. (Seriously, if you don't do yourself the courtesy of believing your own conservative beliefs about how these sorts of attitudes are bad, who will? The government, as part of some generous doxastic welfare program? Don't count on it.) OK, let me spell this out. No. Wait. To hell with it.

Admittedly, I still haven't addressed the issue of why I think there are so few conservatives in academia. The truth is that it's a complex sociological situation and I am not in a position to opine authoritatively. I am reasonably sure that the situation isn't as bad and crude as the numbers may suggest. If you find out that 90%+ of a department is Dem or left of Dem, you might reasonably suspect that the first thing the selection committee did was trash all the applicants who looked a bit Rep. But I'll bet this suspicion is actually off-base. This is important, because I think a lot of folks - perhaps our Mr. Smith is one - infer from the numbers that something real simple is going on. Hence, maybe there's a simple fix. Hence maybe the government isn't too dumb to fix it. I suspect that's just plain wrong.

Rather than imagine a worst case, in which diabolically laughing tweedy Dem profs light their pipes with the burning applications of deserving Republicans, imagine a best case (not that we are going to insist, pie in the sky, that this is the real case; this is just for experimental purposes.) Imagine a Republican undergraduate who has always been treated with consummate civility and respect by his profs and fellow students. But basically he is odd man out, just by the numbers. He can defend Nozick or Oakshott until he is blue in the face and at the end of they day the rest side with Rawls (or whoever). But they fight fair. Listening, and offering cogent objections and conceding small points and isolating exactly at what point the fundamental disagreement arises. And in most classes there isn't any politics at all. And then everyone goes out for beer and it is all fine, and maybe just a bit of (truly friendly) ribbing of this odd fellow who believes such strange stuff. The wonder of it, that such a smart fellow would be conservative!

Now this person has suffered no injustice, plausibly, yet he is going to be significantly less likely to go on to graduate school than his Dem compatriots. Because - well, pissing even into a slight wind is irritating. You never can tell when a bit of unpleasantness will flick back your way. Your advisor will probably be a Dem, by the numbers. That needn't mean that there will be bad feeling or that you will be discriminated against. But ... politics is sensitive. It could be bad and you might be stuck with several years invested in it by the time that became clear. In short, it's tiring and nervous-making to always be the one who has to stand alone. And if you decide to be some angry Jeremiah - make standing alone into a vocation - well, no one likes a Jeremiah in the office next door. If you try to sourge everyone else for their un-conservative stupidity, don't be surprised if you suffer persecution right back. That's just not what Dale Carnegie thought was a good idea. Insulting people. Makes 'em mad.

In short, being a Rep who is thinking about being in the company of Dems for years and years - well, that doesn't sound like much fun. Not quite pearls before these swine forever more, but expectations of underappreciation for sure. And low pay. And occasional cultural friction. Gee. Why not go to Law School?

I'm not saying this completely explains the numbers, but it is hard to believe this dynamic is insignificant. I am inclined to think the scenario I just sketched is in fact the norm in philosophy. I don't speak for other departments. But philosophy runs pretty strongly left, so I rather expect that just a little bit of what I just sketched can go a long way. Which makes it hard to use the numbers to flat-out prove injustice. (I'm not saying it's wrong to point out the numbers. It's a data point. But it needs interpretation.) Academia is a pretty hard world for everyone, and a bit harder for those on the right, and a bit less fun for those on the right, and there's lots of other stuff you can do. (This is a morally and sociologically relevant fact, even if it seems like a cop out for lefties to say: conservatives can go live in a tank if they want to think.) Self-selection. It's not obviously injustice.

But how did the lefties get into the driver's seat in the first place, so that this self-reinforcing feedback loop took hold? Does it matter? Things happen. Tipping point thingies. The culture as a whole has been running steadily right for a generation. Would it be so surprising if the university became a sort of refugee camp for the politically disgruntled, dreaming of a better world? Maybe 2004 will be the year the electorate wakes up and realizes the Reps no longer have enough political philosophy to fill a bumper sticker - which I think is true, now that 'we want small government' fails the giggle test. (I respect a lot of conservatives, but not the Bush administation in 2004, in case you are curious. I respect libertarians, mostly.) Maybe the culture will run left for the next 25 years and the universities will gradually fill with disgruntled, thoughtful conservatives, replacing all the old lefties who now have plum jobs in government. Then maybe the sort of feedback that now favors lefties will favor righties. A bunch of the righties will spew bile at their lefty students, because there will be no one to stop them. (No, I don't believe it either, but this was supposed to be the point of my glib 'circle of life' crack in my previous post. Not that conservatives are foredoomed to rule the world, but that the world is a complex place, and the university is only one part of it, and things change. The political landscape is a complex ecology, the university a very peculiar niche that should not be studied in artificial isolation. And the future is a long time.)

Something that would make the humanities a better place, in my opinion, would be if certain folks on the academic left stopped pretending that there aren't formidable views, deserving of respect, outside the magic circle of views they and their friends regard as respectable. The rituals involved in drawing this magic circle - lots of mummery and incantations: the word for this, I regret to inform, is the same as the one we use to refer to scholarship - are as tedious as they are objectively inefficacious. And no doubt the whole business does nothing to damp down the bad temperaments of those few profs who really do insult their students in gratuitous, professionally and pedagogically inappropriate ways; which of course they shouldn't do. I think it would be OK if we erected stern busts of Eugene Volokh at places where certain of the more annoying leftists gather. We could inscribe it: "Aren't you ashamed of ignoring me, since I'm actually much smarter than you are?" That would be fair, on average, and salutary, if people really took it to heart.

But you know what? Academics are, by nature, inclined to draw little circles - to form up into petty little dogmatic clans. If we made them stop drawing these circles, they'd just draw others, sad to say. Academia is supposed to be this grand, open-air arena in which ideas gloriously clash. But our species just isn't up to it. This is the reason every novel written about the university is a comedy of manners, not a heroic epic. It's because everyone is always checking to make sure everyone else is exhibiting the proper little mannerisms of belonging. At the moment, this cuts against those on the right and libertarians (like myself!) - and many other groups of decent human beings I could mention - who just don't smell right to those on the inside. (As Belle points out: often it's a class thing.) That's too bad, but what are you going to do about it? Send in the National Guard? I think that slapping the wrist of the invisible hand of academic self-selection and snobbery with the visible ham-hand of government regulation and intervention ... well, I've made my point, I trust.

I'm sorry right-wingers can't be humanities profs as easily as those to their left. (Far lefty activists have it hard, too, if that makes you feel any better) I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I truly am. Like most things in life, it's just not fair. I suggest you maintain intellectual discipline and equilibrium, hope for the best, fight the good fight, secretly despise as necessary, and do not get so annoyed that you accidentally adopt all the bad habits of your enemies. After all, it's not like the world would be a better place if every classroom were equipped with two lighthouses - one on the right, one on the left. As Nietzsche said: those who hunt moonbats should see to it that they don't become moonbats in turn.

Apologies for the rambling quality of this post, once again. Much of it was composed in a two inch space of screen with Zoë on my knee, hogging the rest of the monitor to watch flash animations at Noggin.com. That's very distracting. Some of my intellectual failings are Oobi's fault.

Comments

[chujoe]

As a lefty-libertarion Humanities prof, all I can add to this is that universities are just about the only places where hiring is done by the people with whom one will be working every day, rather than a manager or executive. This changes the dynamic considerably. Making decisions about people you will actually work with probaly tilts the selection toward the personal. Having admited this, I have to say that my experience on hiring committies is that the process is exacting, comprehensive, thoughtful. In a word, fair. And you're right--not many obvious conservatives apply.

[Rich Puchalsky]

Geez, just go ahead and discriminate against political conservatives already. The evil twerps *chose* their beliefs; it's just as acceptible to discriminate against them as, say, to discriminate against those who advocate a Stalinist state. If you had the same confidence in your convictions as they do, you wouldn't write these rambling oh-so-fair responses, you'd just say damn right we discriminate against you, and if you don't want to be discriminated against, give up conservatism.

[T. Gracchus]

A presupposition of the debate is that political conservatives are discrininated against. At some point, it would be helpful if someone did some empirical studies examining the claim. So far, we have nothing.
The post presumes Tom Smith is an intellectual of some sort, which is hard to believe on sustained reading of his posts on Right Coast.

[Adam Kotsko]

Maybe the way to redress this would be to make the more reputable right-wing think tanks into degree-granting institutions. Then they would have their little think tanks, and we would have our little humanities departments, and those in power would continue to just do whatever the hell they want.

I know that I used divisive "us/them" language in that previous paragraph. I'm so sorry. I'm not living up to my high liberal standards. Consider me hoisted on my own petard.

[enthymeme]

Is Rich Puchalsky some kind of joke? By his lights we should discriminate against religious Jews, or Christians, or Muslims, or any chosen ideology conveniently deemed "evil". After all, those "evil twerps *chose* their beliefs". So it's "just as acceptible to discriminate against them as, say, to discriminate against those who advocate a Stalinist state."

[Russell Arben Fox]

With all due respect John, I'd be very surprised to discover that your sort of libertarianism--which you describe as "old fashioned Millian liberal[ism]"--was looked down upon in any significant portion of the academy. I mean, I'm sure you know what you're talking about: perhaps most humanities departments (and those philosophy departments that maintain close ties with literary studies and the humanities, which I suppose is where you're coming from) really are beholden to left-leaning collectivism. But that just doesn't fit my experiences; from what I've experienced, the nice secular liberal-libertarian mix that you've often described is, far from being a minority view, easily the dominant perspective, so much so that it barely needs to be articulated.

[Rich Puchalsky]

enthymeme: Religion is a category of belief that receives special treatment in anti-discrimination law both because of history and because people are often effectively born into a religion and have strong resistance to any change thereafter. Check out http://fatty.law.cornell.edu/topics/employment_discrimination.html, for example:

"Employment Discrimination laws seek to prevent discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, physical disability, and age by employers. There is also a growing body of law preventing or occasionally justifying employment discrimination based on sexual orientation."

Note: no mention of political belief. The only laws forbidding discrimination by political belief are those protecting civil servants from wholesale replacement when a political administration changes. Otherwise, it is perfectly legal to discriminate by political belief, and many do, including just about every conservative who writes articles like Tom Smith's.

Now, if you seriously believe that liberalism is good and conservatism is harmful, you should have no trouble in arguing that discrimination against conservatives is good and that discrimination against liberals is wrong. Arguments that greater harm is done by dividing society fail: conservatives have already seperated society into us and them.

[jholbo]

Russell, I didn't mean to imply that I am political odd man out myself, let alone that I am looked down upon, let alone that I have been made to suffer for my beliefs. I haven't (to my knowledge). For one thing, in Singapore all the rules are different - as you can imagine. I'm close enough to the unspoken, approved norm. And philosophy departments are healthy, tolerant places as a whole. I sometimes - but not even very often - get annoyed at the political posturing of lit studies stuff I read. There's a certain amount of pantomime to the effect that anyone to right of Richard Rorty is beyond the frozen limit. But this is more dull than painful. It's not real politics, just a grand style. I am not made to suffer for it, except in the sense that some journals I wish were fun to read - because then I would read them - devote a lot of space to elaborate, non-argumentative exclusions of political points of view they would do better to take seriously. If I ever whine about being politically on the outside, I probably spent the afternoon reading a boring literary studies journal. I do that a lot.

Also, I focus on literary studies a lot because that's what I happen to be working on - in a philosophical way. I don't mean for my incessant focus on it to imply that all eyes ought to be drawn to the horror, the horror. Naw, I just wish I was an English prof.

[Russell Arben Fox]

"Naw, I just wish I was an English prof."

Wow. I think that's the first time in my life I've ever heard anyone who has actually gone through graduate school say that.

[jholbo]

Well, what I mean is: I wish I were an English prof. in an ideal world where being an English prof. would be a lot more fun than it is in this one. It may also sound like I don't have much imagination. I also wish I were a superhero with a million bucks, true enough. Basically, I'm more interested in literature and literary criticism than I am in Anglo-American philosophy, most days. But I find current lit. studies culture tedious, so - on the whole - I'm more suited to life in a philosophy department.

[Chun the Unavoidable]

And lit. studies culture finds you tedious, so it's all for the best.

Just kidding.

[jholbo]

I don't know how I could have forgotten to mention that Chun is never tedious. Which is fortunate, for he lives up to the rest of his name.

[enthymeme]

Puchalsky,

Don't change the subject.

Your original claim was that we should discriminate against conservatives _because_ they chose beliefs _you_ consider to be "evil".

When it was pointed out that the same rationale could be used to justify discrimination on religious grounds, you now change your tune and claim some other justification - namely, that the law doesn't prohibit it.

So from a moral argument along the lines of "conservatives choose evil, therefore we should discriminate against them", you now switch to a quasi-legal argument along the lines of "it isn't prohibited, therefore we should discriminate".

The first argument is laughable. As to the second, let me ask you this: before the Civil Rights Act 1964, employment discrimination based on race was not forbidden. Was it right to discriminate then? _Should_ we have discriminated then? After all, it was "perfectly legal to discriminate based on race". Hmm?

How would you feel about a fellow "liberal" if he told you - prior to the enactment of anti-discrimination laws - that, since it is not forbidden to discriminate against Asians, we should? That it is perfectly "acceptable"? You'd think he was a hypocrite, that's what. How different are you with regards to conservatives?

You then claim: "Religion is a category of belief that receives special treatment in anti-discrimination law both because of history and because people are often effectively born into a religion and have strong resistance to any change thereafter."

This is patently false. Many people change their religious beliefs or become irreligious. It is _still_ a matter of choice, however you paint it. Furthermore, many people are effectively born into households which vote Republican or hold conservative beliefs, and there is "strong resistance to any change thereafter". I don't see you arguing that it is not a matter of choice for these conservatives. Indeed, you argue the opposite. So why the double standards? Can you be consistent?

Next, you claim no mention of "political belief" in discrimination laws excepting those with regards to "wholesale replacement [of federal employees] when a political administration changes". This is false. See § 2302(b) of title 5 of the United States Code:". . . a federal employee authorized to take, direct others to take, recommend or approve any personnel action may not: discriminate against an employee or applicant based on race, color . . . or political affiliation."

Note: no "wholesale". No "change of administration".

Next, you imply no other such laws. Click on the link "NY State law" in the page you cite. Under § 296, Unlawful discriminatory practices,

"It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice . . . [f]or an employer or licensing agency, because of the age, race, creed, color . . . to refuse to hire or employ or to bar or to discharge from employment such individual or to discriminate against such individual in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment."

Political creeds are creeds. Do you disagree?

There's more law at state level.

In California: "[e]xisting law prevents employer discrimination or retaliation against an employee for certain protected activities such as free speech or political affiliation" under California state law.

In Louisiana: (La. Const. art. I, §3): discrimination based on political affiliation is prohibited, under a equal protection clause similar to that of the main constitution.

In D.C.: "District of Columbia Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color . . . political affiliation, familial status . . . . D.C. has one of the most expansive anti-discrimination laws in the United States."

Gee, looks to me like this is as much a "growing body of law" as that which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, which, incidentally, is not expressly prohibited by the relevant federal statutes. So should an employer discriminate against homosexuals if he finds their orientation to be conveniently "evil"? No, I suppose you don't think so. Yet on your second argument, you seem to think it's OK just as long as its conservatives. Why the double standards?

So despite changing your tune, your second argument is apparently as much of a joke as your first. Oh well, I guess hypocrisy is as much endemic to the left as evil is to conservatives.

[Rich Puchalsky]

enthymeme: You argue like a conservative. In particular, I really like your "Don't change the subject" in response to a post that responded directly to your points. I also like "You now change your tune ..." in response to my direct continuation of my argument that it is morally preferable to discriminate against conservatives.

To restate what was clearly stated before: religion is indeed treated differently than political belief, both because of history -- remember that part? -- and because people are often effectively born into a religion. You claim that people change religion or become irreligious. That is true, but was far less true in the historical period when our legal and cultural attitudes about religion were set, thus the "history" in my original answer. Even today, people find it much more difficult to change religion than political belief.

Now, if you want to claim that most conservatives are so stupid that they are incapable of thinking for themselves in matters which do not involve religious faith, and are therefore "conservative for life" because they are brought up that way, I might indeed have to change my opinion. After all, I don't beleive in discrimination against the mentally handicapped.

As should be obvious, the point of quoting anti-discrimination law was to say that it protects people from discrimination based on who they are, not on who they choose to be. I would have rejected discrimination against those of Asian birth or birth culture for this reason even prior to the official protection of law. With regards to sexual orientation, your conservative compatriots apparently consider this to be quite important, spending a lot of time arguing that being gay is a choice, not an inborn characteristic.

I won't spend time arguing about how much a scattering of state laws mean. As for the Federal law which I had forgotten about discrimination by the Federal government itself; it was not always the case that Federal employees were protected in this matter, and they were protected for good government concerns rather than for classic anti-discrimination ones.

Now, as for hypocrisy: I think that I've explained my argument and that it is both coherent and consistent with liberal theory and practise. You may disgree, but so what? That doesn't make me a hypocrite. That just makes you a conservative -- one who has the standard bullying anonymous cowardice typical of your evil cohort.

[enthymeme]

No Puchalsky. You changed your argument from a moral one to a legal one. Stop flapping.

Now you wield "conservative" about like some kind of pejorative stick. Oh please. That's just . . . childish. If arguing soundly and coherently is "arguing like a conservative", so be it. If arguing illogically is arguing like the liberal Rich Puchalsky, be my guest.

Next, yes, I do recall your vague allusion to history which you only now elaborate. While it is true that cultural attitudes towards religion were more settled in 1964 - when Title VII was enacted - it was by no means _unchangeable_. In other words, IT WAS STILL A MATTER OF CHOICE. No matter how you slice it, religion was a matter of personal choice - and this was the lynchpin of your _original_ argument, which you now try to save from collapse by appealing to a _separate_ quasi-legal argument. You changed your argument, period. Stop squirming.

Next, you claim that people find it difficult to change religion, even today. First, this is bullshit. Many, _many_ people lapse into irreligiosity. The phrases "lapsed Catholic", "lapsed Jew", "nominal Christian", or "Born-again Christian" are so often heard as to be hackneyed. They certainly don't indicate "difficulty" in changing religious beliefs. On the contrary, they indicate LOOSE adherence. According to this: "16% of adults have changed their [religious] identification", "A USA Today/Gallup Poll in 2002-JAN showed that almost half of American adults appear to be alienated from organized religion. If current trends continue, most adults will not call themselves religious within a few years." So, how does that translate to "difficulty"? If anything, it should indicate the opposite, according to your 'reasoning'. So why aren't you advocating discrimination on religious grounds? Despite your liberal pretensions, it's equal protection for me, but not for thee, eh?

Second, EVEN granting such a difficulty (which I do not, since you provide zero support for your assertion), IT STILL DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ARE A MATTER OF _CHOICE_. Do you deny that religion is a matter of choice? No? Then what are you blabbering about? You refuse to grant that discrimination against other choice beliefs are justified on _your argument_ from 'choice', yet you make special exception for a class of ideologies you disagree with. You're being inconsistent.

Even today, many people find it difficult to switch political beliefs. I don't see you granting that it is _not_ a matter of choice for these people. More hypocrisy?

But let's grant (again, no figures from you) that more people change political beliefs than religious beliefs. So what? So what if more people switch _religious_ beliefs? It does not indicate less "difficulty" for a person changing political beliefs. Indeed, such a subjective notion of "difficulty" is unassessable - have you gotten into the minds of conservatives and discerned a frightening ease with regards to changing their beliefs? Of course not. So what is this "difficulty" you are alluding to? Where's your data? Zilch. So what are you blabbering about?

Second, and more importantly, just why should the amount of legal protection from discrimination be contingent on numbers? Should Jews not be entitled equal protection because they number less? "Of course not! Uh, actually - uhhh" your addled liberal mind sobs. Well, so why should people who find it difficult to convert from conservatism be less protected from discrimination just because they number less (if they do) than people who find it difficult to change religion? Yeah, what are you blabbering about, again? Your appeal to numbers is fallacious.

"Now, if you want to claim that most conservatives are . . . stupid . . .". No Puchalsky, I don't want to claim that most conservatives are stupid. Do you want to claim that most religious people are stupid? Duh.

You say: "[a]s should be obvious, the point of quoting anti-discrimination law was to say that it protects people from discrimination based on who they are, not on who they choose to be."

Gee whiz, Puchalsky. So in America, religion is not a matter of personal choice??? C'mon, who are you trying to kid?

I note you have no rejoinder to the fact that discrimination against sexual orientation is as much a "growing body of law" as discrimination against political affiliation. On your _second_ quasi-legal argument, you claimed that, since under Title VII, there is nothing that forbids discrimination based on political affiliation, we should do so. Well golly gee, Puchalsky. Nothing forbids discrimination based on sexual-orientation under Title VII too. So should we discriminate based on sexual orientation? No, you don't think so. What consistent logic there.

Of course, you won't spend time on what "a scattering of state laws" mean because they put the lie to your claim that 'since no law forbids discrimination based on political affiliation, we should'. I'm not interested in your waffling excuses for Federal laws prohibiting discrimination based on political affiliation. You were wrong. Deal with it.

Now, as for hypocrisy: you made two arguments. Best be honest and admit that. Second, they both are inconsistent with liberal theory (not sure about "in practice" - lots of hypocrites these days profess one thing but advocate another). Third, you make allusions to the history of religious attitudes, but provide no empirical backup for your claims. Fourth, where these are provided (by me), they indicate that your claims are false. Fifth, even granting your unsupported assertions, they do not change the fact that religion is a matter of personal choice, which basically torpedoes your first argument, and leaves you straddling an inconsistency. Sixth, your second argument is abysmal. The premises are false (there _is_ a "growing body of anti-discrimination law" with regards to political affiliation, CONTRARY to your suggestions) - and your argument is invalid anyway. This leaves you impaled on another inconsistency with regards to sexual orientation. Equal protection for me, but not for thee, eh?

That makes you a hypocrite.

And, oh, boo hoo, I am oh so evil. And a conservative to boot! Laughable. But Puchalsky, not everyone on the internet is an American, and not everyone is a Westerner. And certainly not everyone who disagrees with you is a conservative. Get a clue, thanks.

[enthymeme]

Errata:

"So what? So what if more people switch _religious_ beliefs?"

Should read "_political_ beliefs".

"Third, you make allusions to the history of religious attitudes, but provide no empirical backup for your claims."

Should read "allusions to the history of religious attitudes AND the "difficulty" of changing religious beliefs now, . . .".

[Rich Puchalsky]

Wow, full on blithering from enthymeme, complete with phrases in ALL CAPS, quotes around phrases that I never wrote, weird non sequiters, insistance on points that are directly refuteable by quotation from what I previously wrote... that response has really got it all.

I'm not going to pick my way through that pile on trash. Shoveling away the BS, enthymeme's main point appears to be that religion is a choice, and that therefore it should be a morally acceptible reason for discrimination, assuming that you believe that discrimination should be permitted over matters of choice. This contention fails. Religion has always been assumed to have a component of blind faith, fixed in childhood and not amenable to reason. The fact that some people change religions easily makes no difference; the fact that large groups do not is what makes a difference. Of course, some religions, like Judaism, are at least partially hereditary in the sense that many Jews and non-Jews will still consider someone to be Jewish by descent even if they don't follow Jewish religious teachings.

It is impossible to consider this question independently of history. If religions were really as easily changeable now as political beliefs are, and if we didn't have our social rules set up based on a history in which they were not, then enthymeme would be right -- discrimination on the basis of religion would be both legally and morally permissable. Of course, for many conservatives, discrimination on the basis of religion *is* permissable. Professor Smith, whose post started this thread, comments that he escaped from liberal discrimination by teaching at a Catholic university -- at least some of which have controls over who can be hired and what can be taught, and many of which would presumably have unofficial discriminatory practises in favor of conservatism at least equal in strength to those of the non-Catholic academic community.

[enthymeme]

Apologies for not being clear and explaining the following which any reasonably educated person would know: phrases in double quotes are phrases you wrote, those in single quotes are paraphrased, or scare quoted. Caps are for emphasis. Is this so hard to understand? Apparently it is, for I get no thanks for making it easier for you to grok the arguments at issue.

Now apparently, after shooting your claims to pieces with actual empirical data, you now claim to not want to "pick your way through it". But of course. Your best bet is evasion. Or argument by labeling. "It's all BS". What else is new?

"This contention fails. Religion has always been assumed to have a component of blind faith, fixed in childhood and not amenable to reason."

This is false. Your simplistic notions of religion notwithstanding, plenty of philosophers and theologians from Aquinas to Hume to Kant to Copleston to Plantinga have assumed the contrary. Please stop making all kinds of vacuous claims. I'm quite tired of refuting them only to meet with "it's all bullshit" when it's your bullshit to begin with.

And no, Puchalsky. The claim that religion is "fixed" is simply false. As the ARIS survey and Gallup poll suggest, many people do change religions. Do you need help getting back in touch with reality?

"The fact that some people change religions easily makes no difference;"

Yes it does. It means your claims are false.

". . . the fact that large groups do not is what makes a difference."

Oh yeah? 16% is not large enough for you? Say, homosexuals constitute about 3-5% of the population according to most estimates. And Jews? a 'mere' 1%. So 16% is not large enough, but 3-5% or even 1%, is large enough for anti-homosexual or anti-Semitism discrimination to be wrong. Equal protection for me, but not for thee, eh?

"Of course, some religions, like Judaism, are at least partially hereditary in the sense that many Jews and non-Jews will still consider someone to be Jewish by descent even if they don't follow Jewish religious teachings."

Relavance? And of course, I already specified _religious_ Jews in my first comment. Need help with understanding English too?

"It is impossible to consider this question independently of history."

And yet you provide no empirical data, neither recent nor those from 1964.

"If religions were really as easily changeable now as political beliefs are, and if we didn't have our social rules set up based on a history in which they were not . . ."

History also regarded slavery and racial discrimination as "acceptable" once. So? What are you blabbering about?

"Of course, for many conservatives, discrimination on the basis of religion *is* permissable. Professor Smith . . ."

Irrelevant. Tu quoque. What has Smith to do with your "liberal" arguments for discrimination based on political affiliation? Stop trying to bluff your way out of this.

Do you deny that religion is a matter of personal choice? Apparently, you do. At that point in the debate, you have become unhinged from reality and the relevant empirical data.

Your "liberal" argument fails, ergo you are being inconsistent. Your quasi-legal argument is bullshit. Ergo, you are being inconsistent. Do you need a course in elementary logic as well? I would be glad to assist.

[enthymeme]

Well, minus Kant.

[Adam Kotsko]

That was a true tour-de-force, guys. Thanks. Did you script it beforehand, or was this an ad lib thing? (Assuming there are actually two people involved.)

[Rich Puchalsky]

Adam Kotsko's comment indicates that this thread has reached its end. Really, all that's necessary for conservatives to "win" a debate is to just continue on loopily enough; everyone assumes that if you argue with a fool you're a fool yourself... and enthymeme is anonymous and I am not.

So, to sum up:

1. Liberal anti-discrimination theory has always focussed on preventing discrimination against people with difficult-to-change characteristics, not on insisting that people can not form judgements based on the ideas that others choose to hold.

2. The actually existing body of anti-discrimination law -- which presumably reflects liberal belief in practice -- supports this contention.

3. Since conservatism is not a difficult-to-change characteristic, nothing in liberal theory or practice forbids discrimination against conservatives. Liberals are not being hypocritical by doing so.

4. If you believe that conservatism is harmful -- as most liberals do almost by definition -- then it is not only permissible but positively moral to discriminate against conservatives, unless some other moral value intervenes.

[enthymeme]

Clearly, the merits of my arguments have nothing to do with who I am. What has anonymity got to do with it? Why don't you deal with the issues instead of whining? When you're not complaining about the length of my post, you're moaning about quotation marks, font size, or blustering about imaginary conservatives. What next? You gonna self-implode, or what?

"1. Liberal anti-discrimination theory has always focussed on preventing discrimination against people with difficult-to-change characteristics, not on insisting that people can not form judgements based on the ideas that others choose to hold."

And nowhere have you provided data that shows political beliefs are not "difficult-to-change characteristics". Nor have you provided data that shows religious beliefs are "difficult-to-change characteristics". Put up or shut up, Puchalsky.

"2. The actually existing body of anti-discrimination law -- which presumably reflects liberal belief in practice -- supports this contention."

Rubbish. As I've pointed out before, the "actually existing body of anti-discrimination laws" DO prohibit discrimination based on political affiliation, in multiple jurisdictions (California, D.C., Louisiana, NY, among others), and at federal level (§ 2302(b) of title 5 of the U.S.C.). The laws you allude to are contrary to your point 1. Are you being deliberately obtuse? Or just plain dishonest?

"3. Since conservatism is not a difficult-to-change characteristic . . ."

Bald unsupported assertion. How do you know conservatism is "not a difficult-to-change characteristic"? I have been asking you, ad nauseum, to provide evidence for this contention. You have not. I have been asking you, ad nauseum, to provide evidence that religious beliefs are "difficult-to-change characteristics". You have not. Absent evidence, what you say is little more than unsupported bilge.

". . . nothing in liberal theory or practice forbids discrimination against conservatives. Liberals are not being hypocritical by doing so."

Cut the bullshit plz.
http://www.liberalfuture.com/site/about/liberalismis
"Liberalism is the belief that the defence of individual rights are coupled with the outlawing of discrimination. Individual's freedoms should not be exercised without due regard for their impact on the freedoms of their fellows."

Continue to talk out of your posterior, Puchalsky.

Adam says:

"That was a true tour-de-force, guys. Thanks. Did you script it beforehand, or was this an ad lib thing?"

Hey, I'm glad you enjoyed the self-immolation of one Richard Puchalsky. It was ad lib for me, but Richard clearly followed the script to the letter. Up till and including blowing himself up with his own petar.

[Peter Sean Bradley]

Pulansky,

With all due respect, your assertion that "liberal anti-discrimination theory" has focused on protecting persons from discrimination based on "hard to change characteristics" is a simplification of a complex subject. Some protected characteristics - race, gender, national origin - are, in fact, "hard to change." Other protected classes - e.g., marital status - are remarkably easy to change. Some characteristics change over time or are relative. Age, for example, has significance depending on the workforce. A 40 year old in a pool of 20 year olds is old. That same person is young if the average age of the workforce is 70. Your notion that religion is somehow an immutable characteristic is one I've never heard before. I had thought that one reason for requiring "reasonable accommodation" of religious practices" was to prevent coerced conversions. (You might want to look up California Government Code section 12940 for a fairly typical list of protected classes.)

Further, the claim that political discrimination is legally unproblematic is one that I would encourage among the class of employers who allow me to make a decent living. Not that I want to educate anyone who wants to fire conservatives right and left as the whim takes them and then publish comments about how conservatives are "hateful," but anyone with a modicum of prudence might want to take notice of the following provisions of California law:

Labor Code section 1101 prohibits an employer from making, adopting, or enforcing any rule or policy forbidding or preventing employees from participating in politics. In addition, an employer cannot control or direct the political activities or affiliations of its employees.

Labor Code section 1102 prohibits an employer from coercing or influencing the political activities of employees.

I assume that any reasonably progressive jurisdiction will have similar legislation.

You might find it interesting to learn that section 1101 (or, maybe, 1102) was the first law relied upon in California to provide employment protection to gays who had organized to effect a change in anti-discrimination laws. In other words, legal protection against political viewpoint discrimination preceded protection of "hard to change" characteristics. Were I to represent conservatives denied tenure at colleges, I certainly would have them make their political preferences widely known. (Just thinking out loud here.)

Finally, to change the subject, I appreciate John's insights. I think it's a well established political phenomena that there are single party states, and that within such single party states there are single party counties. Hence, historically from 1865 to 1984, say, Tennessee was a solidly Democratic state, but within Tennessee, there were counties that always voted Republican. How did these arrangements occur? Who knows, but it's not likely that they were a product of intelligence or conspiracy. It was probably simply people moderating their views to get along with their neighbors, which is something that I'd guesss happens all the time in law firms and academic lounges.

[Peter Sean Bradley]

Errata,

Puchalsky, not Pulansky.

If there's one thing I've learned from writing briefs, it's that the error will occur in the first sentence.

[Rich Puchalsky]

Peter Sean Bradley seems to be, at least, coherent, so I'll try one more time.

First of all, you didn't qualify your statement by saying that it wasn't legal advice, even though you are apparently a lawyer. That is unfortunate, because as legal advice, it is very badly researched. Let's start with "I assume that any reasonably progressive jurisdiction will have similar legislation." enthymeme, seemingly well motivated to pick through state legal codes, turned up only four state jurisdictions that prohibit discrimination based on political affiliation, plus the Federal government (which, as I stated before, does so for good government reasons, not anti-discrimination reasons per se).

What's more, again using enthymeme's quote "'e]xisting law prevents employer discrimination or retaliation against an employee for certain protected activities such as free speech or political affiliation' under California state law." Note that California has chosen to protect political affiliation as a *protected activity*, not as a personal characteristic typical of anti-discrimination law. The two citations to labor code that you supply agree; what's being protected is "political activities or affiliations".

This makes a difference. Some jurisidictions tend to protect or allow behavior that other jurisdictions do not. For instance, if you want to stockpile weapons in Montana, I would guess that you have an easier time doing so than in many other places. That doesn't mean that tolerance of such behavior necessarily becomes a universal liberal principle. There are many liberals working on expanding anti-discriminations for gays in large part because sexual orientation does appear to be a "hard to change characteristic", and there are very few campaigning for added anti-discrimination protection by political belief.

Your inital couple of examples are not impressive. Age is an immutable characteristic if I ever heard of one -- a person can not make themself older or younger at will. Marital status is not "easy to change" unless you find it easy to divorce a life partner of many years, or to step outside and marry the first person you find on the street. Unlike political belief, it involves another person besides the one being discriminated against, and therefore is harder change by the requirement of joint action.

Oh, and go ahead with your ideas of representing conservatives denied tenure at colleges. I think that you will find that it is difficult to inject legal proceedings into what has been traditionally an academic review process.

[Peter Sean Bradley]

Puchalsky,

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I will.

Pardon my tardy response, but I was involved all day in a deposition where my client, a deputy sheriff, is asserting his rights not to be discriminated against because of his exercise of his statutorily protected privacy rights in his personnel file. None of which, oddly, involve a "hard to change" characteristic. So, I guess I will have to dismiss my client's lawsuit. But I digress.

Your initial assertion was that the core of anti-discrimination law was in protecting "hard to change characteristics. The reason that this was important was your thesis that it was legally unproblematic to discriminate on the basis of politcs. Without breaking a sweat, I showed that (a) some protected classes were in fact not hard to change, (b) there were laws that protect political ideology and (c) the genesis of the protection of gays in some jurisdiction came from those laws that protected political affiliation. The conclusion, one might think, is that your thesis was wrong or overstated. The real issue, though, was whether one could summarily fire conservatives because they are evil because they are conservatives. Does anyone still think that such conduct isn't actionable?

You then proceeded to criticize me for my research, argued in the face of common sense and common experience that marriage and religion are conditions that is hard to change, like, say, race or sex, and tell me that my 20 years experience in trying cases in this area and, incidentally, settling nearly a half million dollars worth of employment cases in December are mere footnotes to your theoretical insights.

In the face of such breathaking arrogance, I must ask: are you by any chance an tenured academic or a student?

What you probably have a dim awareness of is footnote 4 of the Carolene Products decision that created levels of strict scrutiny for constitutional purposes with respect to "discrete and insular minorities." That holding is relevant only to government actions. In contrast, private actions are typically governed by civil rights legislation. Civil rights legislation, for example, would govern the situation of academics who discriminate against members of the Republican party. Insofar as most universities are governmental entities, then the Carolene Product footnote might have some significance, albeit Republicans or Communists would not qualify as "discrete and insular minorities."

Finally, please appreciate my amusement at the suggestion that the "peer review" process would frustrate any attempt to enforce legal claims against political discrimination. In the vernacular, "ooh, scary." I never cease to be amazed at the collosal arrogance of each and every industry that thinks that its claim to special status must be recognized. Doctors, architects, universities, everyone thinks they've cornered the market on cleverness. The fact is that people prove discrimination claims against universities based on race, sex and retaliation for the exercise of statutory rights all the time. There is nothing in the peer review process that presents a unique problem of proving a claim of employment discrimination.

[Rich Puchalsky]

"Does anyone think that such conduct isn't actionable"? You may be a lawyer, but you have yet to show that you know anything about the legal situation anywhere but in California. There is no Federal anti-discrimination law that includes political belief or affiliation status as a protected class. In any place except California and perhaps 3 other states, a private employer can go ahead and hire and fire based on political belief or political affiliation if they want to. That's why you originally had to cite California code to make your point, and have avoided acknowledging that your original poorly researched assumption that there were such laws in progressive jurisdictions elsewhere was wrong.

Nor have you acknowledged that the law that you cited isn't even anti-discrimination in the sense of protecting a class of persons, since it protects a class of actions.

There is the question of whether universities are considered to be governmental employers or not. I don't expect you to know any more about that then you do about other aspects of this question, given that you apparently don't even know what "peer review" means. It is true that denial of tenure in direct response to the exercise of academic freedom or First Amendment rights is one of the things that will often bring in the legal system, but again, neither of these involves anti-discrimination law.

[enthymeme]

Peter,

Puchalsky will never answer you directly. Note that when he's defeated on the facts, and on merits, he never concedes - he simply changes the subject. The tell-tale signs of a dishonest interlocutor.

Furthermore, when challenged to provide data for his contentions (such as the assertion that conservativism is not a difficult political belief to change), he never does.

And of course, when someone asserts, contrary to logic and commonsense, that religion is not a matter of personal choice, you know it's time to let the deluded fantasist have the last word!

Puchalsky,

Can you or can you not support your contentions as quoted in February 24, 2004 01:59 PM? Simple question. Yes or no? Stop evading. C'mon, amaze me.

[Yehudit]

A wee bit defensive, are you John?