“Academics pride themselves on critical thinking and intellectual virtues. But intellectual honesty demands that we recognize when we are applying principles selectively.”
“学术界以批判性思维和知识美德为荣。但是，当我们选择性地应用原则时，知识诚实要求我们认识到。”
In the following guest post, Joshua May, professor of philosophy and psychology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, points out some of the apparent political inconsistencies of professors, and asks us to consider whether we’re acknowledging our biases and adequately recognizing the expertise of others.
在下一篇文章中，阿拉巴马大学伯明翰大学哲学与心理学教授约书亚·梅（Joshua May）指出了教授的一些明显的政治不一致，并要求我们考虑我们是否承认我们的偏见并充分承认他人的专业知识。
Professor May is the author of Neuroethics: Agency in the Age of Brain Science (2023) and Regard for Reason in the Moral Mind (2018), among other works, which you can more about here. You can read a brief recent interview with him at JSTOR Daily.
梅教授是《神经伦理学：脑科学时代的机构》（2023年）的作者（2023年），并在道德思想中考虑理性（2018年），以及其他作品，您可以在这里进行更多信息。您可以在JSTOR Daily中阅读最近对他的简短采访。
This is the third entry in the 2025 Summer Guest Post Series.
这是2025年夏季嘉宾邮报系列的第三篇。
Why are Liberal Professors More Conservative on Campus?
为什么自由教授在校园里更保守？
by Joshua May
约书亚·梅（Joshua May）
University professors like myself are politically liberal by a large margin. We champion government intervention to solve society’s problems, favor top-down policies to regulate industries, and trust bureaucrats to ensure fairness and safety. But when it comes to our own workplaces—universities—we suddenly sound rather conservative.
像我这样的大学教授在政治上占据了很大的余地。我们倡导政府干预以解决社会的问题，赞成自上而下的政策来规范行业，并信任官僚，以确保公平和安全。但是，当涉及到我们自己的工作场所时 - 我们突然听起来很保守。
We bristle at administrative mandates, lament bureaucratic inefficiency, and insist that centralized decision-making undermines expertise and autonomy. We defend long-standing academic traditions and resist rapid institutional change, despite advocating for progressive overhauls in the broader world. A double standard may be lurking: resistance to bureaucracy and change when it affects us directly but endorsement of those very same forces in other sectors. What explains this apparent inconsistency?
我们遵守行政任务，哀叹官僚效率低下，并坚持认为决策破坏了专业知识和自治。尽管倡导在更广阔的世界中进行性彻底大修，但我们捍卫了长期以来的学术传统并抵制迅速的机构变化。双重标准可能潜伏：在直接影响我们的情况下，对官僚主义的抵抗力和变化，但认可其他部门的这些力量。是什么解释了这种明显的不一致性？
Tradition Inside, Revision Outside
内部的传统，外面的修订
Consider tradition first. In public policy, liberals often push to discard long-standing institutions they see as outdated or unjust. They advocate defunding the police, abolishing the electoral college, and dismantling fossil fuel dependence. They argue that historical monuments should be torn down along with gender norms.
首先考虑传统。在公共政策中，自由主义者经常努力丢弃他们认为过时或不公正的长期机构。他们主张向警察退还，废除选举学院，并拆除化石燃料依赖。他们认为，历史古迹应与性别规范一起拆除。
Yet within our own institutions, professors often act as staunch defenders of tradition. We balk at proposals to change tenure and other protections of academic freedom, despite potential costs to accountability. We often resist efforts to restructure departments, revise general education curricula, or implement standardized assessment measures. Few professors willingly embrace new technologies or teaching strategies, such as online learning, AI writing tools, and competency-based education that allows students to learn at their own pace.
然而，在我们自己的机构中，教授经常充当传统的坚定捍卫者。尽管有潜在的责任感，但我们还是拒绝改变任期和其他对学术自由的保护。我们经常抵制重组部门，修改通识教育课程或实施标准化评估措施的努力。很少有教授愿意接受新技术或教学策略，例如在线学习，AI写作工具和基于能力的教育，使学生可以自己的步伐学习。
The same pattern appears when we turn from teaching to research. We now live in a world of digital media, yet many scholars are wary of new online-only journals and value those with a venerable history. Despite a crisis of confidence in science, we resist proposals to overhaul how we conduct, review, and publish research. In response to failures to replicate studies in a wide range of fields, some researchers have proposed a more demanding threshold of statistical significance (e.g., p < .01 instead of p < .05). It hasn’t caught on. Although some reforms have become more common—such as sharing data on public repositories and preregistering hypotheses—these practices have been met with a surprising level of resistance among people who swiftly embrace gender-neutral pronouns and the inclusion of trans women in competitive sports. On campus, professors act like the kind of traditionalists we deride elsewhere.
当我们从教学转向研究时，出现了相同的模式。我们现在生活在一个数字媒体的世界中，但是许多学者对新的仅在线期刊保持警惕，并重视拥有历史悠久的人。尽管对科学有信心危机，但我们拒绝提案，以大修我们如何进行，审查和发布研究。为了响应在各个领域复制研究的不正确研究，一些研究人员提出了统计显着性的更高要求的阈值（例如，p<.01而不是p <.05）。它还没有抓住。尽管某些改革已经变得越来越普遍了，例如共享有关公共存储库和预先侦察假设的数据，这些做法已经达到了令人惊讶的阻力，他们迅速接受性别中性的代词以及将跨性别女性纳入竞争性运动的人。在校园里，教授的行为就像我们在其他地方嘲笑的那种传统主义者。
What’s concerning isn’t the progressive politics but rather the potential inconsistency. A core principle of reasoning calls on us to treat like cases alike—or else identify a relevant difference. Some might argue that academic traditions are more worth preserving because they safeguard knowledge production in ways that other societal traditions do not. But this argument smacks of elitism, assuming as it does that academic traditions are more fair and venerable.
令人担忧的不是进步的政治，而是潜在的不一致之处。推理的核心原则呼吁我们像对待案例一样对待，或者确定相关差异。有人可能会认为，学术传统更值得保存，因为它们以其他社会传统所没有的方式保护知识生产。但是，这种论点震惊了精英主义，假设学术传统更公平和尊敬。
In reality, both academia and society contain traditions worth keeping and others worth reconsidering. If faculty critique stubborn resistance to change in broader culture, they should be open to the same critique within their own profession. Or, if it is truly risky to overhaul time-honored traditions within academia, perhaps similar costs beyond the ivory tower should be more readily acknowledged. The stability, unity, and shared history that traditions provide arises partly from their form as widely held norms, not their particular content. Oddly enough, we often hear within the walls of academia a valorizing of Western intellectual history simply because it is “our” shared history. Perhaps that’s problematically colonial. Or, if it’s on to something, then there may be more merit to similar ideas about norms in society that provide a shared history.
实际上，学术界和社会都包含值得保持的传统和其他值得重新考虑的传统。如果教师批判顽固的抵抗更广泛的文化改变，他们应该在自己的职业中接受同样的批评。或者，如果要在学术界大修久经考验的传统确实有风险，那么可能会更容易地承认象牙塔以外的类似成本。传统提供的稳定，统一和共同的历史部分是由于其广泛持有的规范而不是其特定内容而产生的。奇怪的是，我们经常在学术界的墙壁上听到西方知识史的价值，这仅仅是因为它是“我们的”共同历史。也许这是有问题的殖民地。或者，如果这是一件事情，那么关于社会规范提供共同历史的类似想法可能会有更多的优点。
Bureaucracy is Good, Except in Universities
官僚主义是好的，除了大学
Another potential double standard arises in how professors regard bureaucracy. Progressive professors often argue that broad, top-down policies are necessary to address systemic problems. In public life, liberals support government intervention to ensure fairness and prevent exploitation. They champion workplace regulations to protect employees, environmental policies to curb corporate excess, and labor laws that impose minimum wages and benefits. These policies may limit the autonomy of businesses and professionals, but they will surely serve the greater good.
教授如何看待官僚机构，出现了另一个潜在的双重标准。进步教授经常认为，广泛的自上而下政策是解决系统问题的必要条件。在公共生活中，自由主义者支持政府干预，以确保公平和防止剥削。他们倡导工作场所法规，以保护员工，环境政策以遏制公司的过剩，以及施加最低工资和福利的劳动法。这些政策可能会限制企业和专业人士的自主权，但肯定会为更大的利益服务。
In universities, however, faculty champion shared governance and complain about bureaucratic oversight. Professors frequently grumble about the ever-expanding list of required syllabus statements, viewing them as intrusive and unnecessary. Many researchers lament the inefficiencies of ethics review boards, which they see as slow and overly cautious barriers to research with humans and other animals. Faculty members bemoan how administrative offices impose rigid metrics, compliance training, and mandatory assessment reporting. In hallways one often hears that administrators should simply trust us to do our jobs, much as farmers and business owners argue against excessive government regulation.
然而，在大学中，教师冠军分享了治理，并抱怨官僚主义的监督。教授经常对所需的教学大纲陈述的不断扩展的清单抱怨，认为它们是侵入性和不必要的。许多研究人员对伦理审查委员会的效率低下感到遗憾，他们认为这是对人类和其他动物研究的缓慢而过于谨慎的障碍。教师bemoan行政办公室如何实施严格的指标，合规性培训和强制性评估报告。在走廊上，人们经常听到管理员应该简单地相信我们做我们的工作，就像农民和企业主反对过度政府法规一样。
We also complain about wasteful spending. Just to order T-shirts for students in our programs, it may take months to navigate the complicated branding rules and the various administrators who seem unable to agree on whether the proposed design is in compliance. When a university does go through a rebranding, we balk at the millions of tuition dollars wasted on consulting firms just to slightly change every logo and piece of letterhead across campus. Despite widespread support among faculty for promoting diversity in general, most regard DEI training as a waste of time and money.
我们还抱怨浪费的支出。仅仅为我们的计划中的学生订购T恤，可能需要几个月的时间才能浏览复杂的品牌规则和似乎无法就拟议设计是否合规的各种管理员进行。当一所大学确实经历了品牌重塑时，我们以浪费数百万个学分的咨询公司浪费了数百万美元，只是为了稍微更改校园中的每个徽标和一块信头。尽管教师在整个促进多样性方面都得到了广泛的支持，但大多数人认为DEI培训是浪费时间和金钱。
What justifies these different attitudes? One possible defense is that professors are experts in their fields and should be trusted to self-regulate, whereas builders, business owners, and venture capitalists may be driven by profit motives that conflict with societal well-being.
是什么理由证明这些不同的态度？一种可能的辩护是教授是其领域的专家，应该相信自我调节，而建筑商，企业主和风险资本家可能是由与社会福祉冲突的利润动机所驱动的。
But expertise is hardly unique to academia. Farmers, engineers, and entrepreneurs also possess specialized knowledge that is often undervalued by bureaucrats. And professors aren’t immune to self-interest. Many defend practices that serve their own convenience rather than the best interests of students, research participants, or the broader community. In addition to resisting new teaching strategies and technologies that could improve student learning, researchers are capable of engaging in fraud and questionable research practices to secure competitive grants or prestigious awards. If we’re being honest, academia, like any profession, contains a mix of high-minded ideals and self-serving tendencies.
但是专业知识并不是学术界独有的。农民，工程师和企业家也拥有专业知识，通常被官僚低估。教授不能免疫自我利益。许多人捍卫服务于自己的便利性而不是学生，研究参与者或更广泛社区的最大利益的实践。除了抵制可以改善学生学习的新教学策略和技术外，研究人员还能够从事欺诈和可疑的研究实践，以确保竞争性的赠款或享有声望的奖项。如果我们说实话，那么学术界与任何职业一样，都包含了富有思想的理想和自我服务的倾向。
Another defense is that the stakes are lower on campus. Societal problems involve life, death, and health, which justify some inefficiencies and sacrifices in autonomy. Think about universal healthcare. The progressive position is that innocent people are suffering, even dying, from lack of health insurance, and through no fault of their own. Sure, Medicare-for-all would be a massive, expensive bureaucracy, but that’s the price to pay for saving people’s lives and livelihood against ruthless, profit-driven health insurance companies.
另一个辩护是校园里的赌注较低。社会问题涉及生命，死亡和健康，这证明了一些自主权中的一些低效率和牺牲是合理的。考虑普遍的医疗保健。渐进的立场是，无辜的人甚至因缺乏健康保险而遭受痛苦，甚至死亡，并且没有自己的过错。当然，所有的医疗保险将是一个巨大，昂贵的官僚机构，但这是为了挽救人们的生命和对残酷，以利润驱动的健康保险公司的生计而付出的代价。
However, higher education can involve the very same exploitation and discrimination that threatens the rest of society. The role of review boards and compliance training are precisely to protect human subjects and college students from harm and unfair treatment. The desire to produce scientific results have led to many unethical experiments. Government-funded researchers neglected and misled participants in the Tuskegee syphilis study, turned a Stanford basement into a makeshift prison, and created torturous conditions for the Silver Spring monkeys in Maryland. Sadly, textbook examples like these aren’t a thing of the past. Mistreatment, neglect, and exploitation can and do still arise from experiments approved by review boards at world-class universities.
但是，高等教育可能涉及威胁社会其他地区的相同的剥削和歧视。审查委员会和合规培训的作用恰恰是为了保护人类学科和大学生免受伤害和不公平的待遇。产生科学结果的愿望导致了许多不道德的实验。政府资助的研究人员忽视了塔斯基吉梅毒研究的参与者，并误导了参与者，将斯坦福地下室变成了临时监狱，并为马里兰州的银泉猴子造成了酷刑条件。可悲的是，像这样的教科书示例并不是过去。虐待，忽视和剥削可以而且仍然是由世界一流大学审查委员会批准的实验产生的。
Besides, even if the stakes are often lower on campus, a double standard remains for high stakes cases. There remains a curious trust and confidence in government agencies while exuding distrust and even contempt for the administrations that govern our own workplace. Even when the stakes are equally high or equally low, progressive professors rarely acknowledge that government bureaucracy can be just as inefficient and tyrannical as university administrations.
此外，即使校园里的赌注经常较低，高赌注案件的双重标准仍然存在。对政府机构的信任和信心仍然是一个奇怪的信任，同时散发出不信任，甚至鄙视管理我们自己的工作场所的政府。即使赌注同样高或同样低，进步教授也很少承认政府官僚机构可能与大学政府一样效率低下和专横。
Recognizing Our Own Biases
认识我们自己的偏见
What’s going on here? The tension between conservatism for work and progressivism for society may stem in part from motivated reasoning. Rather than applying a consistent set of principles, we might tend to favor top-down solutions to problems only when they don’t constrain our personal and professional lives. When government bureaucracy regulates businesses, it is seen as necessary oversight; when university bureaucracy regulates professors, it is seen as meddlesome interference. When political traditions hinder progressive policies, they are considered outdated; when academic traditions provide stability, they are regarded as essential.
这是怎么回事？保守主义的工作与社会进步主义之间的紧张关系可能部分源于积极的推理。我们可能只有在不限制我们的个人和职业生涯时才倾向于对问题进行自上而下的解决方案，而不是采用一致的原则。当政府官僚机构规范企业时，这被视为必要的监督；当大学官僚机构调节教授时，它被视为干预。当政治传统阻碍了进步政策时，它们就被认为过时了。当学术传统提供稳定性时，它们被认为是必不可少的。
This is not unique to academia. Many professions and industries argue for special treatment when they’re the ones affected. Business leaders demand deregulation while benefiting from government subsidies. Conservative voters tell Uncle Sam “don’t tread on me” while applauding efforts to heavily regulate women’s bodies or ban lab-grown meat. Politicians decry government overreach while defending the bureaucratic complexities of their own offices. The broader lesson is that everyone—including conservatives—should be wary of political inconsistencies.
这不是学术界所独有的。许多专业和行业在受到影响的人时都主张特殊待遇。业务领导者要求放松管制，同时受益于政府补贴。保守派选民告诉山姆大叔“不要踩我”，同时鼓掌努力严格规范妇女的身体或禁止实验室成长的肉。政客们谴责政府在捍卫自己办公室的官僚主义复杂性的同时。更广泛的教训是，每个人（包括保守派）都应该对政治上的矛盾保持警惕。
None of this means that professors should embrace all administrative policies in universities or abandon their political commitments outside them. It does mean that we should be more reflective about the principles we apply across different domains. If we believe bureaucratic oversight is essential for businesses and public institutions, we should consider why we resist it in academia—or else heed calls for smaller government and deregulation in other industries. If we think traditions should not be blindly upheld in society, we should examine why we defend them in universities—or else take more seriously calls for stable traditions elsewhere.
这些都不意味着教授应接受大学中的所有行政政策，或放弃其外面的政治承诺。这确实意味着我们应该对我们跨不同领域应用的原则进行更大的反思。如果我们认为官僚主义的监督对于企业和公共机构至关重要，我们应该考虑为什么我们在学术界抵制它，或者呼吁在其他行业中呼吁较小的政府和放松管制。如果我们认为传统不应该在社会中盲目维护，我们应该研究为什么我们在大学中捍卫它们，或者在其他地方更认真地要求稳定的传统。
The goal is not to prescribe a particular stance but to encourage consistency in how we evaluate bureaucracy, tradition, and autonomy across different contexts. Academics pride themselves on critical thinking and intellectual virtues. But intellectual honesty demands that we recognize when we are applying principles selectively—favoring autonomy when it suits us and regulation when it constrains others. If we ask society to rethink its assumptions about governance and tradition, we should be willing to do the same within our own halls.
目的不是规定特定的立场，而是鼓励我们如何评估官僚机构，传统和自主权的一致性。学术界以批判性思维和知识美德为荣。但是，智力诚实要求我们在选择性地应用原则时认识到我们在适合我们的自主权并在限制他人时进行监管时会享受自主权。如果我们要求社会重新考虑其对治理和传统的假设，那么我们应该愿意在自己的大厅内做同样的事情。
Discussion welcome. Comments Policy.
讨论欢迎。评论政策。
