majoritarian departmental politics and the professional pyramid : groupthink mechanisms in academia...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Majoritarian Departmental Politics
and the Professional Pyramid :
Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United
StatesLink to paper as published in The Independent Review
![Page 2: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Classical liberal professors are rare Professors in the humanities and social
sciences (abbreviated h/ss) in the US are dominated by social democrats.
They are generally highly supportive of status-quo interventions and welfare state policies.
In h/ss, Democrats outnumber Republicans about 8 to 1. (Democrats are almost never classical liberals.)
![Page 3: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
1= pro-intervention5= pro-laissez-faire
Distribution of 18-issue policy index scores of academics in the disciplines
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 2.0 2.0 - 2.5 2.5 - 3.0 3.0 - 3.5 3.5 - 4.0 4.0 - 4.5 4.5 - 5.0
0.5 interval of 18-issue policy index
Per
cen
t o
f re
spo
nd
ents
, by
colo
r
Anthsoc Economists History Political Science
![Page 4: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Economics an exception?
Anth-Soc History Political Science Economics
D R All D R All D R All D R All
Mean (St.D.)
[N]
2.15 (0.34) [443]
2.39 (0.43) [21]
2.18 (0.40) [519]
2.04 (0.32) [169]
2.38 (0.67) [20]
2.09 (0.41) [212]
2.02 (0.33) [208]
2.53 (0.58) [37]
2.14 (0.49) [267]
2.36 (0.46) [78]
3.29 (0.71) [27]
2.65 (0.73) [128]
![Page 5: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Economics is not nearly as different as many think.
Overall policy index: 2.65 D to R is about 2.9 to 1. Only about 10% of economists can be called
serious free-market supporters.
![Page 6: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Why so few classical liberals?1. Because academics are wise and
enlightened, and classical liberalism is unwise and unenlightened.
2. Because classical liberalism is wise and enlightened, and academics are unwise and unenlightened to the extent that they oppose classical liberalism.
We proceed on the presupposition of 2.
![Page 7: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Why are liberal professors so rare? A broader question: Why are liberals in
general rare? The question about professors is
intertwined with the question about people in general.
Here we focus on structural features of academia. We speculate on how bad thinking could become locked-in and self-perpetuating.
![Page 8: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Groupthink-- the idea that a group can make bad decisions and
hold bad beliefs because of bad practices and attitudes:
Excessive concurrence-seeking within the group. A lack of critical examination within the group.
Too insulated from outside criticism. Outsiders are stereotyped.
The group validates its own beliefs and decisions. Little independent testing, analysis, or evaluation.
![Page 9: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Groupthink The idea has academic respectability. It approaches cases with a presupposition
of defectiveness. Groupthink is an explanation for defective
thinking. “Groupthink” is pejorative. The term is used with hindsight.
![Page 10: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Groupthink settings The cases are generally narrow policy decisions
taken by a small group.
Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba Vietnam War escalation Watergate cover-up Space shuttle Challenger disaster Etc.
They are afterwards recognized as fiascos, even by the perpetrators.
![Page 11: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Groupthink literature Irving L. Janis, Groupthink, 2nd ed.,
Houghton Mifflin, 1982. Paul ‘t Hart, Groupthink in Government: A
Study of Small Groups and Policy Failure, Johns Hopkins, 1990.
![Page 12: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Groupthink literature Sociology, social psychology literatures:
group dynamics organizational theory and behavior
Groupthink is also applied in: political science international relations public administration management
![Page 13: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Janis“Groupthink refers to a deterioration of
mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment that results from in-group pressures.” (9)
![Page 14: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Hart“the focus of this study will be on flaws in
the operation of small, high-level groups at the helm of major projects or policies that become fiascoes.” (4)
![Page 15: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Similarities between Janis-Hart and our application
The analysts presuppose that beliefs and actions are defective/unenlightened
There is an in-group many parallel mechanisms
![Page 16: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Differences between Janis-Hart and our applicationJ-H groups are
small chief-based concerned about security leaks often under great stress often making high-stakes or risky decisions dealing with immediate exigent issues.
![Page 17: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Differences between Janis-Hart and our application
J-H groups sustain groupthink beliefs that are:
specific to the decision at hand shallow, not about one’s identity
greater potential for eventual admission of defectiveness
![Page 18: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Differences between Janis-Hart and our applicationCompared to J-H groups: Academic groups are:
larger group boundaries are blurrier less chief-based less policy/action oriented less stressful, urgent, risky, secret.
Academic beliefs are: deeper, more complex, 25-to-grave more like moral, political, and aesthetic values
![Page 19: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Adapting the theory to academiaThe differences make academia a less
cohesive group, with less clear policy decisions.
However, certain structural features have made each academic “tribe” more cohesive than meets the eye.
![Page 20: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Groupthink in academia?
How can entire disciplinary professions—like Political Science, History, Sociology, and so on—become mired in unenlightened ideas?
An explanation must relate micro decisions to macro norms and values.
![Page 21: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
What is the XYU History Department?You see XYU, with its campus and buildings.
You think of XYU as a hierarchical organization, led by the Provost or President, the trustees, the Deans of the divisions or colleges.
Beneath them, inside a building, on each floor is an academic department.
![Page 22: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
What is the XYU History Department?
XYU Humanities Building
Philosophy Dept
English Dept
History Dept
Romance Languages Dept
Communication Dept
![Page 23: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Department “Department” sounds like a part. It sounds like a sub-unit within a larger
agency. It sounds subordinate to agency chiefs.
![Page 24: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
An Agency Unto ItselfImportant departmental decisions
Who to hire? Who to tenure and promote? What to teach? What to research? Whom to write for? Which students to promote?
The provost, dean, etc. cannot meddle in History decisions. On questions of History, no one is above the department. The department is autonomous.
![Page 25: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Departmental Procedure How are hiring decisions made? Answer: Majority vote.
What happens when 51 percent share an ideology and feel that to be a good colleague and professor one must share that ideology?
They hire one like themselves. Making it 60 percent, then 70 percent, then 80
percent . . . A tendency toward ideological uniformity within
the department. The gradual elimination of minority points of
view.
![Page 26: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Departmental Ethos However, a major principle is consensus. It is possible for a vocal minority to sink a
candidate. A tendency toward bland, OK-by-everyone
candidates.
![Page 27: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Diverse History Departments? The XYU History will tend to become
ideologically uniform. Might we get diverse History departments
at different universities?
![Page 28: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
On what basis does the department decide? Important decisions (again)
Who to hire? Who to tenure and promote? What to teach? What to research? Whom to write for? Which students to promote?
Answer: The professional norms and standards of History, the profession. Partly, out of sincere faith in History Partly, out of practical need for focal points for
consensus making
![Page 29: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
History: The Profession Nationwide, each History dept functions
within a mono-centric club called History The club hierarchy cuts laterally across the
country The XYU History dept is more a creature of
History than of XYU
![Page 30: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
The Professional Pyramid The “ranking” of:
Departments Journals Historians (“leaders of the sub-field”) Awards, kudos, grants
![Page 31: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Again, the History Dept at XYU
XYU Humanities Building
Philosophy Dept
English Dept
History Dept
Romance Languages Dept
Communication Dept
![Page 32: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Again, History cuts laterally in space
XYU ABU MNU
History
History
History
![Page 33: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Again, the XYU History Department is more a creature of History than of XYU
Harvard, etc.
The History Profession Pyramid: Hierarchy of departments, journals, etc.
XYU
![Page 34: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Professional Hierarchy People like to think that the discipline is:
filled with independent spirits and independent centers of scholarship
polycentric contestable diverse
But if you get out the microscope and think about how the profession functions, you realize it is very hierarchical.
It is highly focused on the apex (including “field” apexes).
![Page 35: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
The only encompassing standard Without an encompassing standard, a
discipline has no prospect of being a coherent enterprise.
“History is what historians do. Historians are those with History degrees and History appointments.”
![Page 36: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Heterodoxy is heterodox Despite heterodox protestations, the
pyramid remains the gravitational well of group practice and individual ambition.
Heterodoxies focus on criticizing the mainstream. People fight over influence and power within the pyramid.
If parallel pyramids get erected, they generally are either ignored or are co-opted into the official pyramid.
![Page 37: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
How much real heterodoxy? There are almost no classical liberal
historians, especially at the apex. What are the classical-liberal parallel
pyramids in History?
![Page 38: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Material Resources Jobs, pay and security Not having to teach Grant money Grad students:
research assistants teaching assistants an audience protégés
![Page 39: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Encompassing public and private 70 percent of professors are government
employees. But privates schools are enmeshed in the
same History profession. New PhDs must be sold to the profession. Public or private doesn’t matter much.
XYU History dept is mainly a creature of History.
![Page 40: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
The market for History professors Is it like the market for waiters?
Thought experiment: What if waiters were like History professors?
![Page 41: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
If Waiters were like History profs Each waiter job is controlled by a collection of
other waiters, a Waiter Department. Each Waiter Department spends money with
slight regard for the preferences of restaurant customers.
There are 200 Waiter Departments. Each Waiter Department gets whatever prestige and revenue-base it commands principally by adhering to the standards of the encompassing club.
Each Waiter Department produces the new young waiters, whom it tries to place in the pyramid.
![Page 42: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
If Waiters were like History profs Non-waiters are deemed unqualified to
criticize the standards of the Waiter club. Waiters at top departments set the tone. Waiters at the top departments rub
shoulders with cultural elites.
![Page 43: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
If Waiters were like History profs Then there might be a groupthink problem
among waiters.
![Page 44: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
The market for Historians History is not like a normal labor market. Supply and demand consist of historians!
Historians producing historians.
Historians buying historians.
![Page 45: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
A Professional Club History is like a genteel society drawing
resources indirectly, much from tax-payers.
Circularities: Self-validating: Historians validate each other
and the pyramid They replicate themselves in PhD students
![Page 46: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
A scary thought What if a small number of departments:
held unenlightened ideas validated each other gained influence over the entire discipline manufactured most of the new PhDs who then filled most of the jobs at all schools?
![Page 47: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
The case of EconomicsLet’s look at:
The percentage of economics faculty with Ph.D. from the worldwide top 35 economics departments . . .
[source: D.B. Klein,”The PhD Circle in Academic Economics,” Econ Journal Watch, April 2005]
![Page 48: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
The case of Economics1
2
3
45
10
20
31 40
50 60
7780
93
102
111120
134
140 151
160170
180
190
200
1
2
3
510
20
31 40
50 60
7780
93
102
111120
134
140 151
160170
180
190
200
y = - 0.0027x + 0.9144
R2 = 0.6447
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Department Rank
% f
rom
top 3
5 E
con D
epts
![Page 49: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
The case of Sociology in USVal Burris, “The Academic Caste System:
Prestige Hierarchies in PhD Exchange Networks,” American Sociological Review, 2004 . . .
![Page 50: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
The case of US Sociology in US“Graduates from the top 5 departments
account for roughly one-third of all faculty hired in all 94 departments. The top 20 departments account for roughly 70 percent of the total. Boundaries to upward mobility are extremely rigid. Sociologists with degrees from non-top 20 departments are rarely hired at top 20 departments and almost never hired at top 5 departments.”(247-249).
![Page 51: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
The case of Sociology in the US“This information confirms the observation
made by [six references deleted here] that mobility in academia is mainly horizontal and downward and seldom upward” (249)
![Page 52: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
The case of Law in the USBrian Leiter of the University of Texas found
that:Among all new faculty who started in tenure-track law-school jobs between 1996 and 2001, more than one-third earned their J.D. from just three law schools: Yale, Harvard, and Stanford.
![Page 53: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
The scary thought . . .. . . is pretty much the way it is!
![Page 54: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Intellectual culture beyond the academy? Suppose the History pyramid goes a
certain way. Can it be challenged? Individuals and small circles of opinion can
criticize. But little salience or eminence in the intellectual culture at large.
The academic discipline is highly insulated. It has cultural power. Outsiders are ignored.
The market for History isn’t a free market. Enlightenment will not necessarily win.
![Page 55: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Majoritarian departmental politics and the professional pyramid:
The combination can explain why unenlightened views come to dominate entire disciplines, and why the views go unchallenged in the society at large.
![Page 56: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Then and nowDemocrats per Republican
1964 Pres. elect.
1968 Pres. elect.
1972 Pres. elect.
Composite
’64/’68/’72 Klein-Stern
2003 Social Science 8.9 : 1 3.8 : 1 3.5 : 1
Humanities 6.6 : 1 3.1 : 1 2.4 : 1 4 : 1 8 : 1 (Ladd & Lipset pp. 62-64)
![Page 57: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
Narrow-tent DemocratsHow much diversity under the Democratic tent?
1= pro-intervention
5= pro-laissez-faire
![Page 58: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
Minimum wage laws
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5
D:1.27 R: 3.00
![Page 59: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Workplace safety regulation (OSHA):
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5
D: 1.16 R: 2.27
![Page 60: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
Pharmaceutical market regulation by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA):
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5
D: 1.27 R: 2.12
![Page 61: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
Air-quality and water-quality regulation by the EPA:
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5
D: 1.10 R: 2.16
![Page 62: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
Laws making it illegal for private parties to discriminate (on the basis of race, gender, age, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation) against other private parties, in employment or accommodations?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5
D: 1.20 R: 2.34
![Page 63: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
Laws restricting gun ownership:
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5
D: 1.30 R: 3.14
![Page 64: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
Redistribution policies (transfer and aid programs and tax progressivity):
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5
D: 1.31 R: 3.28
![Page 65: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
Government production of schooling (k through 12):
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5
D: 1.46 R: 2.86
![Page 66: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
Government ownership of industrial enterprises:
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5
D: 3.20 R: 4.56
![Page 67: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
Repubs’ policy viewsDistribution of 18-isse policy index scores of Republican academics in the disciplines
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 2.0 2.0 - 2.5 2.5 - 3.0 3.0 - 3.5 3.5 - 4.0 4.0 - 4.5 4.5 - 5.0
0.5 interval of 18-issue policy index
Per
cen
t o
f re
spo
nd
ents
, by
colo
r
Anthsoc Economists History Political Science
![Page 68: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
Dems’ policy views,more interventionist, less diverse
Distribution of 18-issue policy index scores of Democratic voters in the disciplines
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 2.0 2.0 - 2.5 2.5 - 3.0 3.0 - 3.5 3.5 - 4.0 4.0 - 4.5 4.5 - 5.0
0.5 interval of 18-issue policy index
Per
cen
t o
f re
spo
nd
ents
, by
colo
r
Anthsoc Economists History Political Science
![Page 69: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
The Democratic tent is narrower
Σ 18 policy-response standard deviations
Democrats 17.1 Republicans 23.1
![Page 70: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
Republicans sorted out
Academic Not academic
Dems: 962 322Repubs: 112 78
8.6 to 1 4.1 to 1
Significant at 1%
![Page 71: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
Groupthink happens Janis, Groupthink, Figure 10-1 (244), verbatim bits
of the figure:
Antecedent Conditions:A Decision-Makers Constitute a Cohesive GroupB-1Structural Faults of the Organization
1. Insulation of the Group4. Homogeneity of Members’ Social Background and Ideology
B-2Provocative Situational Context [n.a.]
![Page 72: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
Irving L. Janis C Symptoms of Groupthink
Type I: Overestimation of the Group1. Illusion of Invulnerability2. Belief in Inherent Morality of the Group
Type II: Closed-Mindedness3. Collective Rationalizations4. Stereotypes of Out-Groups5. Self-Censorship6. Illusion of Unanimity7. Direct Pressure on Dissenters8. Self-Appointed Mindguards
![Page 73: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
Irving L. Janis D Symptoms of Defective Decision-Making
1. Incomplete Survey of Alternatives2. Incomplete Survey of Objectives4. Failure to Reappraise Initially Rejected Alternatives5. Poor Information Search6. Selective Bias in Processing Information at Hand
![Page 74: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
Groupthink happens Irving L. Janis, Groupthink (1982) :
“One of the symptoms of groupthink is the members’ persistence in conveying to each other the cliché and oversimplified images of political enemies embodied in long-standing ideological stereotypes” (37).
“When a group of people who respect each other’s opinions arrive at a unanimous view, each member is likely to feel that the belief must be true. This reliance on consensual validation tends to replace individual critical thinking and reality-testing . . .” (37).
![Page 75: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
A Narrative In 1972 the h/ss faculty was preponderantly
Democratic. Heightened uniformity made the group over-confident. Facing less testing and challenge, the habits of thought became more foolhardy and close-minded. Distant from real intellectual critics, the professors latch on to stereotypes. As the quality of belief deteriorated, the group became more sensitive to tension. This led to tighter vetting and expulsion, more uniformity, more intellectual deterioration.
![Page 76: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/76.jpg)
The result is a professoriate lacking intellectual tension. Taking behavioral cues from one another, each faculty member gets intellectually lazy and slips into bad intellectual habits. Their stereotypes, superstitions, and taboos are often institutionalized as “academic standards,” and permit them to evade real intellectual challenge.
![Page 77: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/77.jpg)
The tenure vote cannot be put on trial. They can lynch a vocal anti-leftist Assistant Professor and get away with it. Anti-leftists know this and respond accordingly.
![Page 78: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/78.jpg)
Outsiders often think that the anti-left professor only needs to get tenure. But graduate school and pre-tenure employment is about 11 years. You find you are no longer yourself.
Your 20s and early 30s are a crucial period of development and cannot be reversed.
![Page 79: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/79.jpg)
Even after tenure, you depend on department colleagues for pay raises, resources, teaching assignments, scheduling, promotions, recognition, and consideration.
Standing up for your ideas usually brings acrimony.
Thus, even tenured anti-leftists shrink from criticizing the dominant ways of thinking.
![Page 80: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/80.jpg)
The more uncongenial academia becomes, the more anti-leftists sort themselves out.
Anyone contemplating an academic career knows the score.
Graduate students never encounter classical liberals.
![Page 81: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/81.jpg)
Sham diversity Tumbling to uniformity, the faculty touts
“diversity”. Regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or
sexual preferences, everyone equally may share the social democratic creed.
![Page 82: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/82.jpg)
Deep Groupthink Subversion of the liberal lexicon:
Freedom Liberty Liberalism Justice Rights Law Rule of law Equity Equality Contract
![Page 83: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/83.jpg)
Imagine the following dissertations: F.D.R. prolonged the Great Depression American labor law hurts the poor Most recycling programs are a waste The school system in this country is a
socialist failure “Social justice” makes no sense Organizational integrity varies positively
with the voluntary basis of participation and funding
![Page 84: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/84.jpg)
Enlightened Ideas Frozen Out Such dissertations will tend to be frozen
out of the “top” journals and jobs. Editors and referees can resort to any
manner of excuse, including that “freedom,” “voluntary,” etc. are illusory concepts.
If necessary, they will revert to dogmas that obscure the coercive nature of government and the collective foolishness of democracy.
![Page 85: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/85.jpg)
Deep Groupthink in Economics Model-mindedness annihilates two key
features of real-world economic processes: Diverse interpretation of the situation The open-ended concept of freedom
Model-mindedness annihilates the crucial arguments for freedom based on discovery and entrepreneurship. The entrepreneur has been eradicated from mainstream economics.
![Page 86: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/86.jpg)
Deep Groupthink in Sociology Code-words for governmentalization:
“society,” “social,” “solidarity,” “community,” “cooperation.”
Code-words for freedom: “the market,” “competition,” “neo-liberalism.”
![Page 87: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/87.jpg)
What is to be done? By whom?
By the groupthinkers themselves:
Correct thyself: Be more classical liberal.
![Page 88: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/88.jpg)
Janis:
“If the members agree that loyalty to their group and its goals requires rigorous support of the group’s primary commitment to open-minded scrutiny of new evidence and willingness to admit errors (as in a group committed to the ideals of scientific research), the usual psychological tendency to recommit themselves to their past decisions after a setback can give way to a careful reappraisal of the wisdom of their past judgments. The group norm in such a case inclines them to compare their policy with alternative courses of action and may lead them to reverse their earlier decisions” (113).
![Page 89: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/89.jpg)
Hire more classical liberals How? Institutional models:
Affirmative-action: Check an ideology box? Property rights within depts (Stephen Balch) Create new departments Create campus institutes
![Page 90: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/90.jpg)
What is to be done?By classical liberal scholars
Challenge: Aim your quill at royalty Justify skepticism, independent thought, doubt “Army of Davids”—the Internet Believe in the long-run benefits of awareness of
groupthink pitfalls and biases
Bargain: Shake hands with the establishment Be willing to be a “domesticated dissenter” (Janis 115-116, 257)
![Page 91: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/91.jpg)
What is to be done?By public officials, citizens, voters:
Reduce tax-payer support of academia.
De-governmentalize.
Make it so that professors have to persuade private parties to support them.
![Page 92: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/92.jpg)
Recap We presuppose that classical liberalism is
enlightened. The lack of classical liberalism among h/ss
faculty has been interpreted as groupthink
![Page 93: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/93.jpg)
Although groupthink has traditionally been applied to small groups of policy makers, many of the differences are mitigated by the major groupthink mechanisms in academia.
![Page 94: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/94.jpg)
Micro decisions:
Majoritarian departmental politics
tends to make each department ideologically uniform.
![Page 95: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/95.jpg)
Macro norms and values:
The professional pyramid
Once an ideological type gains control over the apex, it makes the entire pyramid that way.
![Page 96: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/96.jpg)
Social democrats gained control of the elite departments, sweeping social democrats into nearly every job throughout the discipline.
![Page 97: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid : Groupthink Mechanisms in Academia in the United States Link to paper as published in](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649ca15503460f9495f497/html5/thumbnails/97.jpg)
Majoritarian departmental politics and the professional pyramid resemble and lead to some of the groupthink tendencies found in small policy-making groups.