Originally published in The Chronicle Review on September 11, 2009.
A digital publication of The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Conservatism in Academe: An Exchange
Bruce L.R. Smith and Alan Wolfe on Lilla's essay, with Lilla's response
In his essay, "Taking the Right Seriously," Mark Lilla argues that academe has treated conservative ideas with derision and that universities do not show interest in promoting true intellectual diversity.
For responses, we turned to Bruce L. R. Smith, a visiting professor in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University, and Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life and a professor of political science at Boston College. Lilla also provides a rebuttal.
Bruce L.R. Smith: I am delighted by Mark Lilla's essay, and can find very little to quarrel with. As in his other work that I have read, Lilla's argument is lucid, penetrating, and important. But let me quibble with a few points.
Lilla states that there is not a single conservative at Columbia University. I can assure him that this is not so. In 2000, I returned to Columbia after a 20-year hiatus as a fellow at the Heyman Center for the Humanities. Over the next five years I renewed friendships and acquaintanceships with many colleagues (and met new ones), some of whom can fairly be called conservatives. Perhaps I will prove Lilla's point by forbearing to mention them by name, other than myself. I am, of course, a notorious reactionary, even if, alas, some of my conservative friends have read me out of the fraternity in light of my recent book, Closed Minds? Politics and Ideology in American Universities (Brookings Institution Press, 2008), written with Jeremy D. Mayer and A. Lee Fritschler, which is apparently not conservative enough for them. Let the record show that I was hired, given tenure, and promoted to full professor in Columbia's political-science department, even though I harbored—shudder!—conservative views. I was sometimes called names, especially during our "time of troubles" in 1968, but I never felt muzzled or uncomfortable because of my views. I didn't even feel particularly lonely.
For responses, we turned to Bruce L. R. Smith, a visiting professor in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University, and Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life and a professor of political science at Boston College. Lilla also provides a rebuttal.
Bruce L.R. Smith: I am delighted by Mark Lilla's essay, and can find very little to quarrel with. As in his other work that I have read, Lilla's argument is lucid, penetrating, and important. But let me quibble with a few points.
Lilla states that there is not a single conservative at Columbia University. I can assure him that this is not so. In 2000, I returned to Columbia after a 20-year hiatus as a fellow at the Heyman Center for the Humanities. Over the next five years I renewed friendships and acquaintanceships with many colleagues (and met new ones), some of whom can fairly be called conservatives. Perhaps I will prove Lilla's point by forbearing to mention them by name, other than myself. I am, of course, a notorious reactionary, even if, alas, some of my conservative friends have read me out of the fraternity in light of my recent book, Closed Minds? Politics and Ideology in American Universities (Brookings Institution Press, 2008), written with Jeremy D. Mayer and A. Lee Fritschler, which is apparently not conservative enough for them. Let the record show that I was hired, given tenure, and promoted to full professor in Columbia's political-science department, even though I harbored—shudder!—conservative views. I was sometimes called names, especially during our "time of troubles" in 1968, but I never felt muzzled or uncomfortable because of my views. I didn't even feel particularly lonely.
