While conservatives are happy to leave the economic marketplace to the invisible hand, conservatives' approach to the marketplace of ideas has been decidedly hands-on. Amherst now faces this contradiction in claims that not only do we need to ensure presentation of conservative ideas, but we also need to guarantee their parity with dissenting views. Instead of hiring faculty based on merits of scholarship- the ideal of free-market economics-they demand hiring based on political litmus tests. They tell us that we should exclude candidates of certain ideologies from certain job searches. This position proposes discrimination on the basis of political ideology. Such discrimination is anti-intellectual.
Many conservatives attempt to justify ideological discrimination by pointing to affirmative action programs. Beyond being hypocritical, this idea revolves around a groundless claim: Conservatives have failed to produce even one allegation of a candidate who was not hired on the basis of his or her conservative beliefs. If a person is charged with a crime, the accuser must produce evidence. For instance, in the case of murder, the body must be found. If conservatives claim that conservative job applicants are victims of ideological discrimination, they should produce a body. In lieu of such basic evidence, claims of ideological discrimination can be seen as nothing more than speech defaming our community.
But even beyond this failure to produce an alleged victim, conservatives have also failed to show how Amherst excludes their ideas. I have yet to see a conservative in one of my classes silenced on the basis of his or her ideology, nor have I witnessed a class without the presentation of conservative ideas. Furthermore, if liberal brainwashing is as endemic at Amherst as conservatives assert, why are so many Amherst alums conservative?
Beyond the underlying reasons to avoid ideological hiring, the implications of such a practice would be horrifying. As I have explained previously in more detail, hiring faculty based on personal ideology would destructively polarize this campus. Rather than conveying that faculty should teach subjects fairly, with high intellectual integrity, an ideologically discriminatory hiring practice would turn the classroom into a propaganda show. No longer would our faculty be able to see themselves as bearers of an intellectual tradition; they would be forced to act as bearers of an ideological tradition. They would see their duty not as teaching diverse ideas, but as perpetuating their personal ideologies. This attempt at the destruction of Amherst intellectualism is an affront to our community.
Ultimately, the Right will undoubtedly continue to respond with the assertion that there is one registered Republican amongst 185 faculty members. Beyond being a mischaracterization of teaching at Amherst, this statistic is alarming for another reason. While President Bush may not be able to tell the difference between a quota system and correcting for historical imbalances to create diversity, I can. Any attempt to justify hiring more conservatives based on the proportion of the faculty they represent must be seen as a call for an ideological quota system, especially if the goal is parity in personnel.
In contrast to these arguments aimed at fictional ideological discrimination, consider the motives behind our affirmative action programs, laid out at greater length in the amicus curiae brief Amherst College filed last year. While I will not detail the troubled history of race in America, the end of segregation is merely 50 years old, and the Civil Rights Act only 40. The legacy of discrimination still creates an environment in America structurally different for people of different races. It can hardly be coincidence that 31 percent of black men in the state of Florida have lost their voting rights due to a felony conviction. It is this legacy of racism and discriminatory conditions in our country that Amherst seeks to confront through creating a diverse elite. To allege that de jure equality has brought de facto equality is to turn a blind eye to the current state of our country.
While it may be easy to hide one's political ideology, one's skin color is a mark recognized by all. While physical differences of skin color do not influence a person's actions, the societal construction of race does. From birth, society treats racial minorities differently than the white majority. Far too many of our interactions are tainted by inequalities of race. These experiences of discrimination and the perspective they provide are integral to understanding our world. It is interactions influenced by subconscious or conscious images of race that are experienced differently by people of different races. While one need not believe an ideology to understand and apply it, a white person cannot fully understand the minority experience in America. You can hide a conservative in a crowd of liberals; you cannot hide a person of color in a crowd of white people.
While conservatives have failed to produce even a test case of discrimination against them on the basis of their ideology, anti-discrimination lawsuits are unfortunately common. While many of us are working to confront the injustices of racial discrimination, conservatives now attempt to divert us by lobbying for discrimination against those who do not share their ideology. We have worked too hard for the society we now enjoy. We must preserve our intellectual community. We must say no to ideologically discriminatory hiring.