To the editor:
John K. Wilson’s critique of my survey of UW–Madison faculty (“A Critique of the New UW Madison Faculty Survey,” Inside Higher Ed) raises questions worth engaging, but its central claims do not hold up. Most rest on misreadings of the report or amount to justifications of the findings rather than critiques of the methodology.
On nonresponse bias. Wilson theorizes that aggrieved far-right faculty were overrepresented while far-left faculty boycotted the survey. He provides no evidence for either claim and ignores evidence against—such as that only one of 633 respondents identified as “extremely conservative.” Wilson also ignores where his own theory leads. If far-left faculty boycotted the survey, then those most likely to discriminate against candidates who express conservative views are missing from the sample—meaning the asymmetries the report found would be understated, not overstated.
On the hiring questions. The report already acknowledges that the findings do not directly measure actual hiring outcomes, but this does not mean the findings are irrelevant. Wilson focuses on the immigration question, arguing the conservative statement was unfairly provocative. But that statement reflects a mainstream position—one that half of Americans say they agree with. Wilson’s real argument is that treating a candidate less favorably for expressing one view over the other—a gap of 38 percentage points—is justified. That may be a conversation worth having, but it is not a methodological critique.
On the religion question. Wilson calls “evangelical Christians” a “politicized term associated with a radical minority of Christians” and proposes “radical Islamists” as the proper comparison. Evangelical Christians comprise 37 percent of U.S. Christians according to Pew, and the term is standard in the academic literature. The comparison to “radical Islamists” is inapt: Evangelical Christianity, like Islam, is a religion; Islamism, radical or otherwise, is a political ideology. Wilson also misreads the report as claiming bias against Christians; it observes that a minority of faculty would treat the two religious backgrounds differently, as the data show.
On the inclusion comparison. Wilson claims the report compared including conservative “views” against including “people.” This is a misreading. Both questions asked about the importance of people feeling included on campus—one for “students and faculty with conservative views,” the other for “students and faculty from underrepresented racial groups.” The report compares how faculty prioritize these two forms of inclusion; it does not assume they should be weighted equally.
Finally, Wilson’s critique overlooks findings that complicate his narrative, such as faculty outperforming students on First Amendment knowledge or faculty of color being slightly more conservative than white faculty.
A more detailed response than space permits here is available on the Thompson Center website. I encourage readers to engage with the report itself rather than rely on Wilson’s characterizations of it.
Source link
#John #Wilsons #Critique #Faculty #Survey #Wrong
