History Bias

Editorial:

History department at U of I flunks test of political diversity
Mark Bauerlein

October 10, 2007

What does "diversity" mean at the University of Iowa?

Its nondiscrimination statement provides a roll call of categories: "The University of Iowa prohibits discrimination ... on the basis of race, national origin, color, creed, religion, sex, age, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or associational preference." The listing is customary - except for the final entry. Most people haven't heard of "associational preference," and it never comes up in discussions of affirmative action, workplace harassment or other issues.

But last May the question did arise, and in response an officer in Iowa's Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity named Jan Waterhouse clarified its meaning: "Associational preference within the University policy has been interpreted to include political affiliation."

So why, then, does the history department in the university have 27 registered Democrats and 0 registered Republicans? The most obvious political affiliation, party membership, falls completely on one side. Despite the sizable Republican population of Iowa, not a single representative has made it into the history faculty ranks.

Think of what would happen if other diversities suffered the same disparate outcome. A department of all men would spark an outcry, and rightly so. But nobody seems to worry about the political skew. Waterhouse's statement appears in a response to a complaint of discrimination on "associational preference" grounds filed by a candidate for a history post.

His name is Mark Moyar, a historian with an impressive record: bachelor's degree from Harvard, doctorate from Cambridge; two books, one with Cambridge University Press; laudatory recommendations from distinguished historians; and a growing record of public commentary in national periodicals. He is also a conservative, and his thesis about the Vietnam War - that it was a noble cause that could have triumphed had the United States supported its allies more vigorously - falls well on the right side of things.

When Moyar was passed over for the job and discovered that others selected for interviews had demonstrably inferior records, he assumed that political affiliation did indeed affect his candidacy. He asked the Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity to investigate. The office concluded that there was no evidence that Moyar's application "was evaluated differently because of his political affiliation and/or conservative ideology."

Well, of course, there wasn't. That's not how faculty deliberations work. Nobody says in a committee meeting, "This guy's on the right, toss him out." They look at the publications and letters, judge the applicant's angle on things, and then speak about him as "a bad fit for the department," "not innovative enough," and other such shifty judgments.

This is not to say that Iowa should have hired Moyar. Although he should have made the interview stage, every search has several variables, and there are lots of good applicants out there. But when Moyar pointed out the lack of political diversity, the diversity office and the history department might at least have pondered the stunning lack of "associational preference" diversity in their ranks.

In hard-science fields, the issue isn't important, but in value-heavy areas of the humanities and history, political diversity is crucial. Students should hear the full range of opinion on open and controversial issues. Furthermore, employees and job candidates need to feel that their politics will not affect their status. That is why the non-discrimination statement includes "associational preference" in its list, and why "associational preference" covers political affiliation.

The university pledges to honor diversity, and "associational preference" is included among its kinds. This episode put the commitment to the test, and the university failed - not by not hiring him, but by denying there is any problem at all. 27-0 is just fine.

Mark Bauerlein is a professor of English at Emory University.

Response:

No evidence for political-bias charge at U of I

October 11, 2007

Mark Bauerlein is right to note that the University of Iowa has nondiscrimination policies in place to which we, the history department, are committed ("History Department at U of I Flunks Test of Political Diversity," Oct. 10 essay). But he misunderstands important elements of these policies and the procedures that follow from them.

When candidates apply for a job, we do not ask for their race, sexual orientation or religion. By the same token, we protect job applicants from discrimination on the basis of "associational preference" by not asking about such preferences - to ask would risk the very discrimination we hope to avoid.

As is true generally, and in this case, we do not know if an applicant belongs to the Republican Party, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Black Panthers or the Loyal Order of Water Buffalo.

We don't ask. They don't tell. We don't discriminate - indeed these protections remove the opportunity to do so.

Our hiring policies also protect the privacy of applicants. Conjecture about the academic qualifications and political affiliations of any pool of candidates are just that. Basic privacy protections prohibit the release of such information.

Bauerlein charges that we "passed over" one candidate, and favored others, for political reasons. Yet, by the very nature of the process, we know nothing about any candidate's political or associational preferences.

Bauerlein knows nothing about the rest of the candidates for this or any other job.

I fail to see - by any stretch of logic - the opportunity (let alone the evidence) for discrimination.

- Colin Gordon,
University of Iowa,
Iowa City.

professor and chair,

Department of History

Much as I personally loves me some university history departments, I have to say that anyone seeing the title of Moyar's book on Vietnam would probably know his political affiliation. Plus there's a little article he wrote entitled "The Madness Begins" in regards to American liberalism after Kennedy's assassination.

So let's assume that the UI history faculty knew about his political affiliation. But let's also assume that they knew about his political bias...and that they decided overt bias of any stripe may not be so welcome in a professor who is supposed to let students draw their own conclusions.

I have yet to sit in a college history course where the professor gets all political on the subject matter, with one exception. (That exception involved a professor of a particular minority group who definitely did not hide his/her disdain for the government's treatment of said minority group.) The point of college-level history is to sort through all of the evidence--not just some of the evidence--and reach your own conclusions. In my opinion, a history professor of either party affiliation who may present just one side of the evidence would be performing a disservice to his/her students. Maybe Moyar should apply to PoliSci...
_____

There is a Law & Order: Criminal Intent marathon going on right now on USA network...but it's all Logan episodes. WTF? Gimme Goren. I have a free afternoon, and no Goren?! Bleh, guess I'll get started on my paper for Monday.

Posted by Jenelle at October 11, 2007 01:36 PM | TrackBack