sweetnpetite
Intellectual snob
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2003
- Posts
- 9,135
Myth: Conservative think tanks are the answer to liberal academia.
Fact: Conservative think tanks lack the checks and balances of academia, and produce crank science.
Summary
In response to liberal academia, wealthy conservative businessmen are funding a growing number of far-right think tanks to establish a theoretical footing for their causes. Lacking all the checks and balances that keep academic research honest, these think tanks produce highly flawed and biased studies whose only purpose is to promote policies that favor the business classes that fund them.
Argument
By and large, academia tends to be liberal. There are conservative professors, to be sure, but they are usually moderate, and in the minority. But what of the far right? For many decades now, the far right has been gradually disappearing from American universities (with a few notable exceptions, like the computer science department). The steadily growing influence of liberalism in academia has alarmed many on the far right, because without a source of ideas and theories, the influence of their political movement will crumble.
For this reason, the last decade or so has seen a phenomenal rise in the number of far-right and libertarian think tanks. They have received heavy funding from wealthy conservative businessmen who are eager to reclaim the debate from liberal scholars. William Simon, president of the conservative Olin Foundation, argues that businesses who donate indiscriminately to universities are "financing their own destruction. Why should businessmen be financing left-wing intellectuals and institutions which espouse the exact opposite of what they believe in?" (1)
The solution to the far right's problems is the think tank. Actually, the term is something of a misnomer here. Traditionally, think tanks analyze policy problems and suggest solutions. The current organizations are more properly defined as advocacy groups, or hired intellectual guns. Their sole purpose is to sell policies to the public and Congress that favor the wealthy special interests that fund them.
Think tanks are ideal for this salesmanship, because they lack many of the checks and balances that keep academia honest. Consider their differences in method:
In academia, the peer-reviewed journal and the scientific conference are two important tools for keeping research honest. They allow scholars to confront their opponents and argue out their differences in sometimes brutal and extensive debate. No such policy exists for think tanks. Think tanks must be debated in the media, a severely limited forum (dealing in sound bites) which provides them with a great deal of intellectual cover.
In academia, scholars have an important arbiter in the National Academy of Sciences, which comprises many of the nation's --- indeed, the world's -- most respected scientists. Think tanks, on the other hand, submit their work to the general public, who are usually unqualified to give an expert critique of the study.
Public universities promote diversity of thought as an official policy, by rotating different-minded professors in and out of teaching assignments. There is no diversity of thought in a think tank, where researchers are hired because they already agree with the foundation's political philosophies.
Academics conduct their research first and draw their conclusions second -- if they don't, they'll catch hell at peer review. But think tanks do this exactly backwards: they reach their conclusions first and conduct their research second.
The sheer size of academia also works to keep research more accurate. There are over 3,600 higher academic institutions in the U.S., but only a few dozen think tanks. Academia therefore has a vastly larger talent pool and considerably greater research facilities than think tanks. (2)
For more of this article:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-thinktank.htm
Fact: Conservative think tanks lack the checks and balances of academia, and produce crank science.
Summary
In response to liberal academia, wealthy conservative businessmen are funding a growing number of far-right think tanks to establish a theoretical footing for their causes. Lacking all the checks and balances that keep academic research honest, these think tanks produce highly flawed and biased studies whose only purpose is to promote policies that favor the business classes that fund them.
Argument
By and large, academia tends to be liberal. There are conservative professors, to be sure, but they are usually moderate, and in the minority. But what of the far right? For many decades now, the far right has been gradually disappearing from American universities (with a few notable exceptions, like the computer science department). The steadily growing influence of liberalism in academia has alarmed many on the far right, because without a source of ideas and theories, the influence of their political movement will crumble.
For this reason, the last decade or so has seen a phenomenal rise in the number of far-right and libertarian think tanks. They have received heavy funding from wealthy conservative businessmen who are eager to reclaim the debate from liberal scholars. William Simon, president of the conservative Olin Foundation, argues that businesses who donate indiscriminately to universities are "financing their own destruction. Why should businessmen be financing left-wing intellectuals and institutions which espouse the exact opposite of what they believe in?" (1)
The solution to the far right's problems is the think tank. Actually, the term is something of a misnomer here. Traditionally, think tanks analyze policy problems and suggest solutions. The current organizations are more properly defined as advocacy groups, or hired intellectual guns. Their sole purpose is to sell policies to the public and Congress that favor the wealthy special interests that fund them.
Think tanks are ideal for this salesmanship, because they lack many of the checks and balances that keep academia honest. Consider their differences in method:
In academia, the peer-reviewed journal and the scientific conference are two important tools for keeping research honest. They allow scholars to confront their opponents and argue out their differences in sometimes brutal and extensive debate. No such policy exists for think tanks. Think tanks must be debated in the media, a severely limited forum (dealing in sound bites) which provides them with a great deal of intellectual cover.
In academia, scholars have an important arbiter in the National Academy of Sciences, which comprises many of the nation's --- indeed, the world's -- most respected scientists. Think tanks, on the other hand, submit their work to the general public, who are usually unqualified to give an expert critique of the study.
Public universities promote diversity of thought as an official policy, by rotating different-minded professors in and out of teaching assignments. There is no diversity of thought in a think tank, where researchers are hired because they already agree with the foundation's political philosophies.
Academics conduct their research first and draw their conclusions second -- if they don't, they'll catch hell at peer review. But think tanks do this exactly backwards: they reach their conclusions first and conduct their research second.
The sheer size of academia also works to keep research more accurate. There are over 3,600 higher academic institutions in the U.S., but only a few dozen think tanks. Academia therefore has a vastly larger talent pool and considerably greater research facilities than think tanks. (2)
For more of this article:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-thinktank.htm
