Larregue argued that while there is an ideological imbalance among academics that this imbalance has not unfairly impacted our findings. He also implies that it is the activism of conservatives, rather than progressives, which has created real problems in academia. As such he disputes claims that activism among progressive academics has create a backlash from political conservatives. However, Larregue does not address the previous empirical work on the subject of academic bias. Furthermore, his argument of methodological rigor does not address the tendency of scholars to overlook alternate theories. His argument that progressive scholars are no more biased than conservative scholars fails to account for the sheer number of progressive scholars relative to conservative scholars as it concerns the possibly of institutional bias. I also find his focus on fraud to be misplaced since scholars do not have to engage in fraud to be in ideological silos that do not take alternative theories into account. As to his second major argument, I am unsure whether liberal academic activism leads to conservative mistrust and await further future research on this topic. I do commend Larregue in bringing the question of sources of conservative mistust to our attention.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Ames, B., Barker, D., Bonneau, C., & Carman, C. (2005). Hide the republicans, the christians, and the women: a response to “politics and professional advancement among college faculty”. The Forum, 3(2), 7 (2005).
Antonio, A. L., Chang, M. J., Hakuta, K., Kenny, D. A., Levin, S., & Milem, J. F. (2004). Effects of racial diversity on complex thinking in college students. Psychological Science, 15(8), 507–510.
Asante, M. K. (1998). The Afrocentric idea (rev. ed.). Philadelphia: Temple university.
Bolce, L., & De Maio, G. (2008). A prejudice for the thinking classes. American Politics Research, 36(2), 155–185.
Cofnas, N., & Carl, N. (2017). Does activism in social science explain Conservativesâ€™ distrust of scientists? The American Sociologist, 1–14.
Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 808–822.
deBoer, F. (2017). Republicans don't Trust higher education. That is a problem for liberal academics. LA Times, accessed January 8. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-deboer-higher-ed-republican-20170724-story.html.
Ecklund, E. H., Park, J. Z., & Veliz, P. T. (2008). Secularization and religious change among elite scientists. Social Forces, 86(4), 1805–1839.
Gross, N. (2013). Why are professors liberal and why do conservatives care? Harvard University Press.
Gross, N., & Simmons, S. (2007). The social and political views of American professors. Working Paper presented at a Harvard University Symposium on Professors and Their Politics.
Grosz, E. A., & De Lepervanche, M. (1988). "Feminism and science." Crossing boundaries: Feminisms and the critique of knowledge. Wellington, NZ: Allen & Unwin Ltd.
Harding, S. G. (1986). The science question in feminism. Cornell University Press.
Hunter, J. D. (1991). Culture war: The struggle to define America. New York: Basic Books.
Inbar, Y., & Lammers, J. (2012). Political diversity in social and personality psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(5), 496–503.
Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes.
Karenga, M. (2002). Introduction to Black studies. Racism: Essential Readings (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001):209–216.
Ladd, E. C. Jr, Lipset, S. M. (1975) The Divided Academy: Professors and Politics.
Larregue, J. (2017). Conservative apostles of objectivity and the myth of a â€œLiberal Biasâ€• in science. The American Sociologist. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-017-9366-9.
Milliken, F. J., Bartel, C. A., Kurtzberg, T. R.. (2003). Diversity and creativity in work groups. Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration. 32–62.
Mullen, B., Anthony, T., Salas, E., & Driskell, J. E. (1994). Group cohesiveness and quality of decision making: an integration of tests of the groupthink hypothesis. Small Group Research, 25(2), 189–204.
Reinharz, S., Davidman, L. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. Oxford University Press.
Rothman, S., & Robert Lichter, S. (2009). The vanishing conservative - IsThere a glass ceiling? In R. Maranto, R. E. Redding, & F. M. Hess (Eds.), The politically correct university: problems, scope, and reforms (pp. 60–76). Washington, D.C.: The AEI Press.
Rothman, S., Kelly-Woessner, A., Woessner M. (2010). The still divided academy: How competing visions of power, politics, and diversity complicate the mission of higher education.Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Tobin, G. A., Weinberg, A. K. (2007). Profiles of the American University, Vol. 2: Religious beliefs and behaviors of college faculty. Institute for Jewish and Community Research.
Yancey, G. (2011). Compromising scholarship: religious and political bias in American higher education. Waco: Baylor University Press.
Yancey, G. (2012). Recalibrating academic Bias. Academic Questions, 25(2), 267–278.
Yancey, G. (2015). Both/and instead of either/or. Society, 52(1), 23–27.
Yancey, G., & Williamson, D. (2014). So many Christians, so few lions: Is there Christianophobia in the United States? Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Yancey, G., Reimer, S., & O'Connell, J. (2015). How academics view conservative protestants. Sociology of Religion, 76(3), 315–336.
Yaniv, I. (2011). Group diversity and decision quality: amplification and attenuation of the framing effect. International Journal of Forecasting, 27(1), 41–49.
This comment refers to the article available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-017-9366-9.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yancey, G. Yes Academic Bias is a Problem and We Need to Address it: a Response to Larregue. Am Soc 49, 336–343 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-018-9374-4
- Academic bias
- Conservative mistrust
- Conservative scholars
- Progressive scholars