Counter-arguments and Responses

The Hoover Institution brings diversity.

This question has the merit of recognizing that Hoover has a conservative bias. However,

Diversity of thought should be brought to campus without institutional orthodoxy.

Hoover isn't covered by academic freedom b/c fellows are not members of the professoriate.

Hoover Institution should adhere to the policies of academic freedom if it is a part of the university.

The Hoover is 1/4 democrat! That's more diverse than the poli sci department.

What we are claiming is that the Institution, distinct from the projects of its individual fellows, maintains a political bias. Our concern is thus with examples of how the Institution acts as an Institution, not with the party affiliations of its members.

But how could they use the mission statement in hiring practices and also hire liberals like Gerald Dorfman and Michael McFaul? William Perry is a Hoover Fellow and he worked for Clinton!

This is a good question. First, we are not suggesting that political views are the only factor in hiring Hoover Fellows. That is clearly not the case. But if politics is even one factor among many in the hiring of fellows, this is a violation of academic freedom.

Second, the hiring practices of Hoover Institution is not, in my opinion, homogeneous. I think they go after some folks simply because the Poli Sci department would like them to (this is the case with Morris Fiorina, whom Poli Sci tried to hire 3 times); or who are prestigious. But this doesn't prevent them from using politics as a factor in shaping the character of the body of Hoover Fellows. As Raisian told the San Francisco Chronicle on February 24, 1995: "[Hoover] tends to be suspicious of bigger and more expensive government . . . . People who look to the government to try to solve problems are not the type who will fit in well." So there may be liberal scholars who are part of Hoover Institution, but Raisian makes it clear in this quote that these scholars are not integral to Hoover's character as an institution.

That phrase, "limit government intrusion in the lives of individuals", is too vague to mean anything.

See Raisian's quotes.

Hoover doesn't censor or control individual research, so how could it not be academically free?

Academic freedom doesn't just mean the absence of censorship. It means the absence of institutional orthodoxy.

Opinion at the Hoover Institution is diverse and in fact, opposite to what you'd suspect. Most of Hoover is against the war, for instance.

We are not claiming that the Hoover's mission statement ensures that everybody thinks the same thing. We are claiming that it is an influence in the political shape of the body of fellows. This means perhaps having a general agreement about the goals of political activity and values for judging policy, not a set of ready-made ideas. And the fact that, of the academics that support the war and formulate Bush's policy on Iraq, so many are found at Hoover, is a reflection of that political shape.

To clarify this, let's suppose that the History Department only hired people that were registered Republicans. We would all recognize this as inappropriate, but there is no reason to believe that everyone in the History Department would support the invasion of Iraq.

How come you're not going after Feminist Studies?

Feminist Studies is an academic program dedicated to academic pursuits, not political ones. The Feminist Studies Department gives its mission as the "investigation of the significance of gender in all areas of human life," as well as the study of systems of inequality. It does not have a political mission, but a scholarly one.

What's the difference between Coit Blacker, who worked for Clinton, and the Hoover Institution?

Hoover Institution is an institution connected to the university, and as such should not have a political goal. Coit Blacker is an individual and we support individual participation in politics.