As you scroll through the Hamilton College website, one of the first pages you’ll encounter is “Our Diverse Community” under the “About” section. It describes an ideal and diverse student body, which is replete with different perspectives that enhance intellectual discussion and the quality of personal interactions. This claim primarily centers on racial and ethnic diversity, with the website proudly touting 31 percent of the student body as students of color and over 45 countries represented. Yet these claims and on-campus discussions of diversity repeatedly and deliberately leave out a critical component of diversity: political diversity.
You don’t have to look far to see how Hamilton lacks political representation. The Hamilton Republicans are virtually nonexistent on campus, while the College Democrats regularly hold meetings and coordinate events. The Heartland Institute reports that former Professor Robert Paquette left the College after experiencing ideological attacks as the only outspoken conservative faculty member. An article for campus publication The Monitor was published last semester claiming that all Republicans are inherently immoral. With a crystal-clear picture of our vastly-asymmetrical ideological representation on campus, how do we still have the audacity to claim that Hamilton cherishes diversity?
Hamilton is undoubtedly not the only U.S. institution faced with this left-leaning phenomenon. According to the National Association of Scholars, Democratic professors outnumber Republicans 10 to 1, and when military colleges are excluded that number increases to 12.7 to 1. The numbers are more staggering when it comes to elite liberal arts colleges; New York Magazine reports that at Williams, Wellesley, and Swarthmore, the ratio exceeds 120 to 1. In every single area of study, the average number of Democratic professors is starkly higher than Republicans.
The appeal for more political diversity amongst faculty is repeatedly dismissed by the media as being invalid in its conclusions and assumptions. Many generalize the argument as coming from a stance of victimhood, vaguely claiming that past conservative marginalization of minority groups should render conservatives unable to complain about being excluded from the campus conversation. Another bold assumption is that this disparity doesn’t necessarily diminish the amount of student exposure to differing political ideologies in the classroom. They also claim that in corporate boards, a right-leaning outlook is more apparent, yet there are fewer debates against increasing ideological diversity in those sectors.
A crucial point that should be carefully noted is that biases inherently affect our beliefs and outlooks in all capacities of our day-to-day discourse. We are subconsciously driven to debate and discuss issues in manners that supports our views. Unbiased opinions are seemingly impossible to uphold, professors are no less likely than anyone else to allow their personal biases to seep into their lectures. The implication in arguing that political diversity amongst faculty and students should not be an essential goal is that it assumes that discussion in differing political viewpoints will be obtained naturally. However, the absence of a single vocal conservative professor on campus parallels the lack of right-leaning discussion, fostering ideological homogeneity.
There are a number of initiatives on campus currently striving to create more varied political discourse amongst students that shouldn’t go unnoticed. Hamilton recently partnered with public radio content producer StoryCorps in a new project called “One Small Step,” which will invite students with differing opinions to have conversations about their political stances and discuss why they came to associate with their views rather than argue about them. Likewise, the new campus organization “Bridge” was created to promote meaningful discussion by engaging students with various political viewpoints in an effort to diminish the ideological divide. Common Ground models respectful dialogue with influential speakers from different sides of the political spectrum to convey how thoughtful debate can take place.
While these efforts to increase political discourse are a good first step, they are not enough. The lack of center-to-right representation within the student body and faculty creates a leftist congruity in student discourse which disregards the wide spectrum of political ideologies within the American population. This illusion does a disservice to students who will most likely be met with starkly differing opinions amongst coworkers after graduation, and will most likely grow embittered by the actual amount of disagreement with their beliefs that lies outside our liberal bubble. Heated discussions with individuals on different sides of the political spectrum are without a doubt uncomfortable, but that debate is necessary to create meaningful conversations and challenge students about their preconceived political notions.
Hamilton, before you claim our community is a diverse one, please take a moment to specify the areas in which you truly seek to diversify the student body. Don’t fail to acknowledge the visible leftist homogeneity.
