The deep meaning of diversity: A case study
Posted by Scott
Power Line
Today's New York Times Week in Review previews the study of the political tilt of law professors by Norhtwestern University Law School Professor John McGinnis: "If the law is a ass, the law professor is a donkey." Adam Liptak writes:
The study, to be published this fall in The Georgetown
Law Journal, analyzes 11 years of records reflecting
federal campaign contributions by professors at the top
21 law schools as ranked by U.S. News & World Report.
Almost a third of these law professors contribute to
campaigns, but of them, the study finds, 81 percent who
contributed $200 or more gave wholly or mostly to
Democrats; 15 percent gave wholly or mostly to Republicans.
The percentages of professors contributing to Democrats
were even more lopsided at some of the most prestigious
schools: 91 percent at Harvard, 92 at Yale, 94 at
Stanford. At the University of Virginia, on the other
hand, contributions were about evenly divided between the
parties. The sample sizes at some schools may be too
small to allow for comparisons, though it bears noting
that by this measure the University of Chicago is
slightly more liberal than Berkeley.
Liptak himself goes out of his way to mitigate the natural reaction of thoughtful readers to the results of McGinnis's study, but he does allow Professor McGinnis to make a point that gives away the game here:
[T]he study does note an arguable inconsistency in the
way law schools approach student admissions and faculty
hiring.
When the United States Supreme Court endorsed race-
conscious admissions policies in 2003, it based its
decision on the importance of ensuring the representation
of diverse viewpoints in the classroom.
Law schools that take race into account in admissions
decisions, the study says, "open themselves to charges of
intellectual inconsistency" if they do not also address
the ideological imbalances on their faculties.
And which law schools might those be that take race into account in admissions in the name of "diversity" but feature faculties almost entirely lacking in "diversity"? The question might more appropriately be, which don't?
(Thanks to reader Trevor Hall.)
powerlineblog.com
nytimes.com
