This is great. We frequently recruit to support our existing strengths vs add new areas - we're a fairly small department and we want folks who can collaborate and attract strong cohorts of students. A few searches ago, our clinical area was debating whether to hire an addiction researcher or a geropsych/lifespan researcher; clinical aging is already key area of strength for us, whereas we didn't have folks focused on addiction. I'm sure you can guess where we landed.
Hi Paul! I'd love to hear more about why you think there shouldn't be a Jungian in the Psych dept or a holistic healer pov represented in med schools. (It felt like you were saying "But these would be ridiculous hires" as if that is self-evident). To my mind this is the kind of thinking that keeps new techniques for chronic pain management from being funded or taken seriously, which is why understanding your point of view is important to me. I'm sure you have good reasons behind your thinking, but it isn't as evident to me as it might be for you...
I got the impression that the idea of the Jungian or the holistic doctor is functioning as a stand-in for intellectual rigor, and if so the article might benefit from stating that more plainly. If we can imagine someone who believes in the validity of holistic medicine but is intellectually and methodologically rigorous and scrupulous to a fault in their research, such that even people who disagree can acknowledge that, I don't see any issue - and certainly I would personally (as a layman, granted) prefer them to someone who holds more conventional views but is a sloppy and dishonest researcher.
I guess the real question is just whether such people exist within a given viewpoint. You won't, for instance, find any intellectually rigorous hollow earth researchers, because no such rigorous research exists.
I cherish the people I've met who are both of those things -- open-minded + intellectually rigorous. They certainly exist. They're rare, but they exist.
(BTW if you know people who fit this description, please share their info with me here!)
It's still early on, but there are starting to be peer reviewed studies in this area of research: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34586357/ . There need to be more!
It IS possible to get peer reviewed work in this area. I'm reading Jo Marchant's book on this topic now.
But if the current pov of is "this is obviously ridiculous," with no further explanation, it's going to take...even longer.
A good start would simply be removing the barriers that seem designed to eliminate "wrongthink" and bias searches. DEI commitment statements (including the newly reframed "it's not DEI but tell us how much you like diversity and equity" statements) should be fully removed. Same with "equity representatives" or whatever other name you have for the commissars on search committees. And things like "cluster hires" that are really just blatant affirmative action schemes also have to be done away with.
I get the "collegiality" aspect as a practical issue with hiring people one disagrees with, though frankly that seems quite juvenile (if accurate!). I'd be fine with the idea that different departments ought to specialize in different things. The problem is when they all end up going in basically one direction, with GMU Econ being the exception that's so unique that it proves the rule. It would help to encourage schools to think about finding new niches and areas of focus rather than just imitating others. I suspect that the areas that conservatives or moderates would be more interested in studying are often denigrated and considered out-of-fashion, especially by more activist-minded younger faculty who view academia as a means to progressive political ends.
"how much should departments give up in terms of cohesiveness and productivity..." this is, I think, the wrong thing to stress, especially at the level of fields of study. The goal should be to search for truth, not to produce a bunch of articles of people making minor contributions and agreeing with each other. That's the path to groupthink and irrelevance (and the current path that academia seems to be on).
There are a lot of interesting points, but I'll push back on the last thing you said. Cohesiveness and productivity aren't about "minor contributions"--they are considerations that have to be taken seriously if you care about the pursuit of truth.
A well-considered piece, with a lot to chew on. There are some weaknesses here, though.
First, when you make the dismissive comments about Jungians (and others), you are essentially admitting that there are two different kinds of Viewpoint Diversity in your own mind - the kind you will gladly tolerate if it doesn't raise too many OTHER problems, and the kind you largely will not tolerate, regardless. Kind of arbitrary, that. Who gets to decide what the "forbidden sub-disciplines" are? This essentially IS the problem of a lack of Viewpoint Diversity - and one can't solve it by making arbitrary declarations.
Second, though you do make a few passing references to the need to actually educate undergraduates, the gist of the contemporary Viewpoint Diversity objection is actually usually CENTERED on undergraduate education. I know that profs (and even non-prof Ph.D.s such as myself) like to think of the University in terms of the research mission, but there are, at any given time, many times as many undergrads as grad students being influenced by the faculty (though perhaps in less life-changing ways). It is in the area of undergraduate education that a faculty lacking in Viewpoint Diversity truly comes up short - tending (whether it wants to or not) away from broadening young minds and toward straight-out viewpoint indoctrination. This is the essence of the objection, and while you have outlined well that there are OTHER problems in any University department that need to be BALANCED with this one, your argument against Viewpoint Diversity doesn't really fully address the problem critics of academia most want addressed.
One way, which you don't discuss, that a University can provide to its undergraduates more Viewpoint Diversity while still allowing departments to "build for strengths" is for campus-wide leadership to be constantly thinking in terms of Viewpoint Diversity across the entire enterprise. I was an undergrad at a huge Land Grant University 1973-77, and Viewpoint Diversity of THAT sort is what I experienced as an undergrad - even though few departments were internally Viewpoint Diverse. I think that was true of a lot of schools then, and I think that a lot of that has been lost over the last five decades.
Hi Jim -- Regarding your first point, you're right. I think some diverse views shouldn't be encouraged. I think it would be a mistake to push for Holocaust deniers in history departments or flat-earthers in astronomy departments. This was one of the points of my article, actually--we don't (and shouldn't) want diversity for its own sake; we should want diverse views _that are worth pursuing_.
Who decides? The experts do. I think physicists, say, are in the best position to identify the most exciting new ideas in physics--and distinguish them from crackpottery. They will inevitably make mistakes, but what's the alternative?
Your points 2 & 3 are pretty compelling. But isn't point 1 just the status quo? Several decades ago most psych departments stocked up on enough center-left researchers that they no longer hire anyone who is openly right-wing or libertarian. We already live in a world where point 1 happens all the time. It just feels "neutral" because we expect psychology to be center-left. (I guess we should be grateful that it wasn't Marxists.) A focus on intellectual diversity might lead to a few departments becoming nothing but libertarian or connectionist or evolutionary, which locally is perhaps not great, but then it solves the collective action problem you outlined later.
Apologies late reply.. I've been trying to bribe myself by getting out in public and projecting myself. In other words, implementing a lot of my research which is documented in my substack. I'm volunteering quite a bit for the salvation army kettle as I feel their work gets results in real terms to alleviate suffering, it's one person at a time. I enjoy getting the little kids to bring the bell and when I get the adults to ring the bell a big smile and you can tell a dopamine Rush comes over them. Very few people today engaged with others outside there task or job. They just can't see the big picture with perspective. Anything outside what they're doing was just oblivious to many. I think diversity of opinion is important. I don't like domination and control and hierarchy of thinking. I like grassroots innovation and exploration. As Paul said too. I don't like crackpots and there's a lot of them. Today. I support diversity in the sense of middle of the road politics to end polarization and just get things done. No extreme left. No extreme right. They all have an opinion but at the end of the day we need to get things done and build on previous efforts to move our country forward. We need to build out hospitals, infrastructure and systems because that is what is needed. As far as diversity of thinking in departments. I think it's a good idea to entertain original ideas if they're based on achievement and substance in the real economy, so I'll leave it at this. I'm open-minded and I like to listen but at the end of the day for my mental health I have to make it a termination if I accept the viewpoint or I don't. If I do accept the viewpoint I Incorporated into my systematic thinking and internalized the content not only in my systems but in my integration within my mind and writing and viewpoints. Maybe this isn't exactly what you're talking about, but this is what's on my mind right now. As Danny Kahneman said what's on your mind right now is most important! As far as leadership goes, listening is one of the biggest strengths of a leader. Happy holidays! Today I'm working the salvation army kettle in the afternoon and in the mornings I'm going walking in the therapeutic pool at the Y as I need to keep my physical fitness up in my 76 year. I hope some of this above content makes sense to others?
Excellent essay. Captures a lot of my thinking very well. It is also a “diverse” viewpoint in the viewpoint diversity debate. Too often, view point diversity
Too often, viewpoint diversity advocates forget or neglect rigor, excellence and merit. In some fields, it is fair to NOT hire certain views because such views do not pass a rigor or merit test.
There’s a genre of article that decries a trend towards “homogenization” of cities around the world, where they point out that you can go to Berlin and Santiago and Chicago and Tokyo and find the same Korean taco restaurants and Japanese-Scandinavian coffee shops.
I think this is about a parallel issue. If every individual city/department is maximally diverse, then every city/department is the same. If there are some important things that are done at the city/department level rather than at the individual level, then true diversity would have to be somewhat fractal - there would need to be individual places that are homogeneous one way, individual places that are homogeneous another way, individual places that have particular distinctive mixes, and so on.
And this goes on above the level of the academic discipline too - it matters that anthropology and sociology and economics are three different disciplines with a lot of overlapping subject matter, but that come to different internal consensuses. And that there are engineering schools and liberal arts schools and places that try to represent all disciplines, and places like MIT that are engineering schools with strong social sciences, and so on.
Saying that Israel is committing genocide is like saying the Earth is flat ... which is why we shouldn’t hire such "great minds" that propagate what Steven Pinker rightly calls "a terrible blood libel".
Strong piece. The Agatha vs Craig example nails why viewpoint diversity at the department level backfires operationally. That George Mason econ department case is interesting because it shows how constraned resources can actually force clarity about institutional strategy, something big departments never have to face. The collective action problem you mention at the end feels under explored though, since if all departments build for strength, minority viewpoints effectively get selected out of academia entirely regardles of merit.
This is great. We frequently recruit to support our existing strengths vs add new areas - we're a fairly small department and we want folks who can collaborate and attract strong cohorts of students. A few searches ago, our clinical area was debating whether to hire an addiction researcher or a geropsych/lifespan researcher; clinical aging is already key area of strength for us, whereas we didn't have folks focused on addiction. I'm sure you can guess where we landed.
Hi Paul! I'd love to hear more about why you think there shouldn't be a Jungian in the Psych dept or a holistic healer pov represented in med schools. (It felt like you were saying "But these would be ridiculous hires" as if that is self-evident). To my mind this is the kind of thinking that keeps new techniques for chronic pain management from being funded or taken seriously, which is why understanding your point of view is important to me. I'm sure you have good reasons behind your thinking, but it isn't as evident to me as it might be for you...
I got the impression that the idea of the Jungian or the holistic doctor is functioning as a stand-in for intellectual rigor, and if so the article might benefit from stating that more plainly. If we can imagine someone who believes in the validity of holistic medicine but is intellectually and methodologically rigorous and scrupulous to a fault in their research, such that even people who disagree can acknowledge that, I don't see any issue - and certainly I would personally (as a layman, granted) prefer them to someone who holds more conventional views but is a sloppy and dishonest researcher.
I guess the real question is just whether such people exist within a given viewpoint. You won't, for instance, find any intellectually rigorous hollow earth researchers, because no such rigorous research exists.
I cherish the people I've met who are both of those things -- open-minded + intellectually rigorous. They certainly exist. They're rare, but they exist.
(BTW if you know people who fit this description, please share their info with me here!)
They are unwilling to allow dissenting views into the echo chamber of “peer review”.
It's still early on, but there are starting to be peer reviewed studies in this area of research: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34586357/ . There need to be more!
It IS possible to get peer reviewed work in this area. I'm reading Jo Marchant's book on this topic now.
But if the current pov of is "this is obviously ridiculous," with no further explanation, it's going to take...even longer.
A good start would simply be removing the barriers that seem designed to eliminate "wrongthink" and bias searches. DEI commitment statements (including the newly reframed "it's not DEI but tell us how much you like diversity and equity" statements) should be fully removed. Same with "equity representatives" or whatever other name you have for the commissars on search committees. And things like "cluster hires" that are really just blatant affirmative action schemes also have to be done away with.
I get the "collegiality" aspect as a practical issue with hiring people one disagrees with, though frankly that seems quite juvenile (if accurate!). I'd be fine with the idea that different departments ought to specialize in different things. The problem is when they all end up going in basically one direction, with GMU Econ being the exception that's so unique that it proves the rule. It would help to encourage schools to think about finding new niches and areas of focus rather than just imitating others. I suspect that the areas that conservatives or moderates would be more interested in studying are often denigrated and considered out-of-fashion, especially by more activist-minded younger faculty who view academia as a means to progressive political ends.
"how much should departments give up in terms of cohesiveness and productivity..." this is, I think, the wrong thing to stress, especially at the level of fields of study. The goal should be to search for truth, not to produce a bunch of articles of people making minor contributions and agreeing with each other. That's the path to groupthink and irrelevance (and the current path that academia seems to be on).
There are a lot of interesting points, but I'll push back on the last thing you said. Cohesiveness and productivity aren't about "minor contributions"--they are considerations that have to be taken seriously if you care about the pursuit of truth.
A well-considered piece, with a lot to chew on. There are some weaknesses here, though.
First, when you make the dismissive comments about Jungians (and others), you are essentially admitting that there are two different kinds of Viewpoint Diversity in your own mind - the kind you will gladly tolerate if it doesn't raise too many OTHER problems, and the kind you largely will not tolerate, regardless. Kind of arbitrary, that. Who gets to decide what the "forbidden sub-disciplines" are? This essentially IS the problem of a lack of Viewpoint Diversity - and one can't solve it by making arbitrary declarations.
Second, though you do make a few passing references to the need to actually educate undergraduates, the gist of the contemporary Viewpoint Diversity objection is actually usually CENTERED on undergraduate education. I know that profs (and even non-prof Ph.D.s such as myself) like to think of the University in terms of the research mission, but there are, at any given time, many times as many undergrads as grad students being influenced by the faculty (though perhaps in less life-changing ways). It is in the area of undergraduate education that a faculty lacking in Viewpoint Diversity truly comes up short - tending (whether it wants to or not) away from broadening young minds and toward straight-out viewpoint indoctrination. This is the essence of the objection, and while you have outlined well that there are OTHER problems in any University department that need to be BALANCED with this one, your argument against Viewpoint Diversity doesn't really fully address the problem critics of academia most want addressed.
One way, which you don't discuss, that a University can provide to its undergraduates more Viewpoint Diversity while still allowing departments to "build for strengths" is for campus-wide leadership to be constantly thinking in terms of Viewpoint Diversity across the entire enterprise. I was an undergrad at a huge Land Grant University 1973-77, and Viewpoint Diversity of THAT sort is what I experienced as an undergrad - even though few departments were internally Viewpoint Diverse. I think that was true of a lot of schools then, and I think that a lot of that has been lost over the last five decades.
Hi Jim -- Regarding your first point, you're right. I think some diverse views shouldn't be encouraged. I think it would be a mistake to push for Holocaust deniers in history departments or flat-earthers in astronomy departments. This was one of the points of my article, actually--we don't (and shouldn't) want diversity for its own sake; we should want diverse views _that are worth pursuing_.
Who decides? The experts do. I think physicists, say, are in the best position to identify the most exciting new ideas in physics--and distinguish them from crackpottery. They will inevitably make mistakes, but what's the alternative?
Your points 2 & 3 are pretty compelling. But isn't point 1 just the status quo? Several decades ago most psych departments stocked up on enough center-left researchers that they no longer hire anyone who is openly right-wing or libertarian. We already live in a world where point 1 happens all the time. It just feels "neutral" because we expect psychology to be center-left. (I guess we should be grateful that it wasn't Marxists.) A focus on intellectual diversity might lead to a few departments becoming nothing but libertarian or connectionist or evolutionary, which locally is perhaps not great, but then it solves the collective action problem you outlined later.
Apologies late reply.. I've been trying to bribe myself by getting out in public and projecting myself. In other words, implementing a lot of my research which is documented in my substack. I'm volunteering quite a bit for the salvation army kettle as I feel their work gets results in real terms to alleviate suffering, it's one person at a time. I enjoy getting the little kids to bring the bell and when I get the adults to ring the bell a big smile and you can tell a dopamine Rush comes over them. Very few people today engaged with others outside there task or job. They just can't see the big picture with perspective. Anything outside what they're doing was just oblivious to many. I think diversity of opinion is important. I don't like domination and control and hierarchy of thinking. I like grassroots innovation and exploration. As Paul said too. I don't like crackpots and there's a lot of them. Today. I support diversity in the sense of middle of the road politics to end polarization and just get things done. No extreme left. No extreme right. They all have an opinion but at the end of the day we need to get things done and build on previous efforts to move our country forward. We need to build out hospitals, infrastructure and systems because that is what is needed. As far as diversity of thinking in departments. I think it's a good idea to entertain original ideas if they're based on achievement and substance in the real economy, so I'll leave it at this. I'm open-minded and I like to listen but at the end of the day for my mental health I have to make it a termination if I accept the viewpoint or I don't. If I do accept the viewpoint I Incorporated into my systematic thinking and internalized the content not only in my systems but in my integration within my mind and writing and viewpoints. Maybe this isn't exactly what you're talking about, but this is what's on my mind right now. As Danny Kahneman said what's on your mind right now is most important! As far as leadership goes, listening is one of the biggest strengths of a leader. Happy holidays! Today I'm working the salvation army kettle in the afternoon and in the mornings I'm going walking in the therapeutic pool at the Y as I need to keep my physical fitness up in my 76 year. I hope some of this above content makes sense to others?
Very nice insights. Although I think the whole point of being an iconoclast precludes the necessity for affirmative action.
Excellent essay. Captures a lot of my thinking very well. It is also a “diverse” viewpoint in the viewpoint diversity debate. Too often, view point diversity
Too often, viewpoint diversity advocates forget or neglect rigor, excellence and merit. In some fields, it is fair to NOT hire certain views because such views do not pass a rigor or merit test.
> Nobody expects the shyness profs and the memory prof to ever talk to one another.
That sounds rather extreme. I thought academics were supposed to value interdisciplinary work across fields even more different than that!
Thanks so much, Dr. Bloom.
Did you watch Marc Maron's latest special on HBO? I think you might appreciate certain parts of it.
Sound like you’re a flaming liberal
There’s a genre of article that decries a trend towards “homogenization” of cities around the world, where they point out that you can go to Berlin and Santiago and Chicago and Tokyo and find the same Korean taco restaurants and Japanese-Scandinavian coffee shops.
I think this is about a parallel issue. If every individual city/department is maximally diverse, then every city/department is the same. If there are some important things that are done at the city/department level rather than at the individual level, then true diversity would have to be somewhat fractal - there would need to be individual places that are homogeneous one way, individual places that are homogeneous another way, individual places that have particular distinctive mixes, and so on.
And this goes on above the level of the academic discipline too - it matters that anthropology and sociology and economics are three different disciplines with a lot of overlapping subject matter, but that come to different internal consensuses. And that there are engineering schools and liberal arts schools and places that try to represent all disciplines, and places like MIT that are engineering schools with strong social sciences, and so on.
Saying that Israel is committing genocide is like saying the Earth is flat ... which is why we shouldn’t hire such "great minds" that propagate what Steven Pinker rightly calls "a terrible blood libel".
Strong piece. The Agatha vs Craig example nails why viewpoint diversity at the department level backfires operationally. That George Mason econ department case is interesting because it shows how constraned resources can actually force clarity about institutional strategy, something big departments never have to face. The collective action problem you mention at the end feels under explored though, since if all departments build for strength, minority viewpoints effectively get selected out of academia entirely regardles of merit.
Whew, too many notes... Good notes, just too many to finish...