Conservatives Are Dumber Than Leftists

In the Controversies From The Past Department, we recall this story. (I was reminded of it after reading an article at

Six years ago, a list was published that showed the political affiliation of the Duke “All Men Are Potentially Rapists” University faculty. Some departments, like History, had no Republicans; the others had large majorities of Democrats.

The list caused such a stink that professors were compelled to respond publicly. They held a public forum to discuss “How Could This Happen?”

At that forum, the chairman of the Philosophy department, Robert Brandon, and therefore a man who would be expected to have at least a passing familiarity with logic said this:

If, as John Stuart Mill said, stupid people are generally conservative, then there are lots of conservatives we will never hire. Mill’s analysis may go some way towards explaining the power of the Republican party in our society and the relative scarcity of Republicans in academia. Players in the NBA tend to be taller than average. There is a good reason for this. Members of academia tend to be a bit smarter than average. There is a good reason for this too.

He later claimed that he was joking.

In response in the Duke Chronicle, Mary Bejan, a Duke parent, pwned Brandon so badly that the man still has trouble sitting:

Any student of Elementary Logic knows that J.S. Mill’s observation that “Stupid people are generally conservative” does not imply that “People who are conservative are generally stupid.” Such an inference would be a formal fallacy. Even if this were not the case, the meanings of the terms “conservative” and “liberal” have changed since the time of Mr. Mill, as I am sure Professor Brandon knows, however entertaining he may find Mill’s observation to be in the present context. Many of today’s so-called “conservatives” would not be conservative in Mill’s sense, but “liberal” in the classical sense of the term…

There could be a “benign” explanation for the homogeneous nature of the political affiliations of Duke liberal arts faculty (e.g. one might choose to register Democrat or Independent regardless of political philosophy in order to vote in the more meaningful primary races in North Carolina).

However, rather than simply resting with the observation that he did not “know” and did not “care” about the politics of his colleagues, Professor Brandon seems to imply that they could not be conservative as they are not stupid. They are, in fact, “smarter than average.” It is not difficult to draw the conclusion that he would assume an individual to be stupid if he knew him or her to be conservative and therefore would not consider hiring that person, perhaps without even considering the value of their scholarly output.

Other, non-benign, explanations are: conservatives do not bother applying for jobs at Duke; they do apply but are rejected by current faculty on ideological grounds; they apply and are hired but skedaddle once they discover the outrageous zealotry of their colleagues; they apply and are hired but leave depressed after realizing too many kids don’t belong at university; they apply and are hired and then lie about their affiliation to get along.

And there is another point of error in Brandon misfired jocularity: he assumes he and his colleagues are intelligent. The only proof he offered for that assumption is his elementary mistake in reasoning. Then we recall that Duke, in its “diversity” efforts, hired Houston Baker, one of the eighty-eight professors who signed a letter condemning the Duke lacrosse team (regular readers will recall that I emailed Baker asking about this: he has not yet responded).

(Though, in Duke’s favor, they have a lot of Bayesian statisticians, who are all highly intelligent by definition.)

Note: Brandon is still at the Philosophy Department at Duke, where he announces, humorously, that he is teaching the Symbolic Logic course. His department is suspending graduate admissions for next year. The Duke lacrosse team press-lynching took place two years after the diversity forum.


  1. Scott

    Just awesome. and right !

  2. Candy

    “Then we recall that Duke, IN ITS “DIVERSITY” EFFORTS, hired Houston Baker, one of the eighty-eight professors who signed a letter condemning the Duke lacrosse team (regular readers will recall that I emailed Baker asking about this: he has not yet responded).”

    Are you surprised that he hasn’t yet responded to you? It’s prudent not to respond to a person who continues a campaign of subtle racism in his writing.

  3. Briggs


    No, not surprised. But “racism”? Is it racist to use skin color to discriminate in hiring decisions? If so, then it is not I that is racist.

    Also, for fun, take a look at the post I linked to see some examples of Baker’s prose.

  4. 49erDweet

    Eleven years ago visited Durham and Chapel Hill in conjunction with the Special Olympics World Games in Raleigh. The ambiance at Duke was as if they thought they walked on wather and were another Stanford. Just not as nice. UNCer’s, otoh, were open, friendly and helpful. Total opposites.

    I sometimes wonder of folk bragging about being “intelligent really only mean “schooled”?  A world of difference between the two.

  5. 49erDweet

    “water” [durn this small font]

  6. ken

    Reality, when one has to confront it, has a way of making people confront & contend with unpleasant facts of various types. A manager, working in the real world for example, will quickly see that an affirmative action program (a typical “liberal” project initiative) will typically bring in people that will take advantage of the opportunity they otherwise wouldn’t have been given and perform, or at least make a real effort — just as those liberals say will happen. But they also see a fair number of people sitting back & waiting for the next handout in some form, having a negligible, or disruptive, impact overall — which the “liberal” activist would like to ignore & pretend doesn’t exist. And what better place to be able to do that than in a university (a philosophical “ivory tower” of one’s own fashining) — where one’s philosophy, outlook, and value-based conclusions can be selective, omitting various unpleasantries indigenous to the real world?

    Of course that ilk will rebel against and, at every opportunity villify, those who are notably more conservative. They’re intimidated by competence in others, a competence that allows those others to confront & contend with real world unpleasantries that they themselves are too fearful of admitting exist, never mind actually dealing with. The university environment is, for them, a safe warm womb in which they feel safe.

    For a thorough psychoanalysis in laymans terms see: & get the book, “The Liberal Mind” by Dr. Lyle Rossiter, available at that site as an inexpensive download.

  7. Duke Duke Duke Duke of Earl Duke Duke.

    I vote for number last – the self-delusion of intelligence among Dukers. Bayesians notwithstanding.

  8. john

    Both major US political parties are conservative, each holding fast to current practice that matches their ideology and vigorously trying to change everything else to conform to it. The only reason democrats are called liberal and republicans are called conservative is because overall the country’s policies have traditionally been more R than D. Though it it hard to really tell if/when the balance shifts because the major M.O. of each party is to oppose the other one and other than a few hot button issues, ideology changes at every pass.

    R- ‘Bush wants to bailout banks, let’s do it – Obama wants to bail out more banks, what an idiot”
    D-‘Bush wants to continue the war; he’s a moron. Obama wants to continue the war; he’s just doing the right thing”

    That being said, I’d guess Mill was spot on and Brandon has a poor sense of humor or a poor grasp of reality.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *