Why Harvard Has So Few Conservative Faculty – Or Does It?

Is Harvard’s faculty really brimming with progressives? Recent Crimson pieces concerning conservatism have renewed interest in the question of why or whether Harvard has so few conservative faculty.

Conceptually speaking, conservatives are people for whom preservation of something is essential to how they see themselves in the world. After distinguishing between three types of conservatives (non-exhaustively), we see conservatives are not as rare as some think. The one type of conservative that has largely disappeared from universities over time, and whose disappearance seems to explain most of the perceptions around absent conservatives, has disappeared for good reason.

One version of conservatism holds that some groups are more significant than others either as humans or as citizens. Call them Equality Deniers. Their conservatism consists in maintaining the superior group’s status. A second version accepts equality among humans or citizens but does not think this implies much economically or socially — inequality of possessions or class distinctions are (wholly or largely) unproblematic. Call them Equality Qualifiers. Their conservatism concerns the conservation of state capacities. A third version consists in an attitude maintaining or seeking high status in societal structures that remain effectively unquestioned (conserved). Call them Status Seekers.

In my experience, Harvard does not have many (if any) Equality Deniers on the faculty. That is a good thing, reflecting much historical learning. Harvard does have plenty of Equality Qualifiers, also a good thing — even if they do not see themselves as conservatives. Harvard abounds with Status Seekers, always has, and probably always will.

Consider historical instantiations of conservatism. Equality Deniers have been the historical norm among conservatives. Conservatives have been skeptical pragmatists who see radical change as human hubris. They have been Romantics aching for bygone ages, staunch absolutists, or elitists of sorts who oppose emancipating the masses based on views of human excellence. Denial of equality was not always the animus of their view, but it was nevertheless a feature. Often this meant a group of white men was considered privileged over everyone else — women, people of color, other white men. Across history such views prevailed in society, and those who taught at universities shared them.

Over time, thinking people have realized how difficult it is to defend views putting one group above others in this way, which is why we no longer find many research programs committed to this position — and do not have many Equality Deniers on Harvard’s faculty.

Then there are economic conservatives whose views of civil liberties are tied closely to private property. They are Equality Qualifiers. Thinkers like Hayek, Friedman, or Nozick are often called conservatives, but many liberals too are Equality Qualifiers if their endorsement of human or political equality falls short of full economic or social equality.

We regard thinkers as conservative when they are closer to the accepting end of the spectrum of allowing some level of economic or social inequality, and as liberal if they are closer to the rejecting end. Since we can see this as a spectrum, there is space for disagreement. I see myself as liberal, but it would not be ludicrous for a strong economic egalitarian to label me as conservative — thus people on the far left rightly see much conservatism at Harvard.

We do have plenty of Equality Qualifiers; some see themselves as conservatives, others do not. It would seem most do not want to be lumped together with Equality Deniers. But from the point of view of those who do not want to see equality qualified this way, they are conservative.

As has frequently been noted, many students are Status Seekers — and many faculty are too. I wish there were more of each who seek to use Harvard to make the world a better place, but what matters is that we have no shortage of this type, and historically never had.

A recent piece has pointed out that for conservatives some people “are held more valuable than others.” This position is held by Equality Deniers. But the examples (people contribute more, serve the country, are entrepreneurial) suggest that the author talks about Equality Qualifiers. The punchline is this: “The argument is over how a democracy should treat its inequalities: should we equalize them or value them?” Yet this is a caricature: Most liberals have no difficulty valuing certain distinctions and acknowledging they lead to economic inequalities (Equality Qualifiers) as well as recognizing that more “conservative” qualifications exist.

What liberals insist on is that such inequalities be made consistent with equal status as humans and citizens — they stay clear of Equality Deniers.

Some perceive “woke” (read: liberal) ideology as rejecting so-called common-sense distinctions. Another op-ed added that Harvard is moving towards banishing these binaries altogether — and therefore must lack genuine conservative thought.

This is another caricature. One way of thinking about these distinctions is in the spirit of Equality Deniers. Such thinkers insist on binaries and deny that anything else is real or matters. You have to be a man or a woman, with all that implies, period. Intersex people, trans people, queer people — if they exist, they are inferior. Such views are not present in many current research portfolios because we have learned how implausible they are.

Another way to think of such distinctions is in the spirit of Equality Qualifiers. For the man-woman case this means we recognize that there are a variety of gender identities, but at the human or citizenship level, these identities are equal.

Nevertheless, hard questions arise about just what this equality entails. Does this mean trans women can participate in women’s sports? Do declarations of gender identity suffice to require others to treat you this way? These present profound challenges that are best understood as debates among Equality Qualifiers. We have quite a bit of that discussion at Harvard — what we lack are views that think “man-woman” settles everything. That is a good thing.

On balance, conservatives are much more present at Harvard than some might suggest. While Equality Deniers are not found because their position has been retired to the archives of history, Equality Qualifiers and Status Seekers abound. Let’s not pretend we have a problem where we do not. For none of these groups is affirmative action called for.

And let’s stand up to Equality Deniers wherever we see them — especially if they are in the Oval Office.

Mathias Risse is Berthold Beitz Professor in Human Rights, Global Affairs and Philosophy and Director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy.