Inbar and Lammers (2012, this issue) contribute to the growing empirical evidence of discrimination against conservative (i.e., right-of-center) people and ideas not only in social and personality psychology, but within the academy generally. Because sociopolitical values are often a core component of self-identity that significantly impact our interpersonal relationships, sociopolitical discrimination is difficult to overcome. There is a tendency to marginalize the sociopolitical “other,” along with a groupthink that implicitly presupposes that this form of discrimination is acceptable (e.g., because conservatives are self-interestedly motivated, conservative ideas are incorrect, or conservatism is well represented elsewhere in society and thus need not be in the academy). Yet discrimination must be overcome because sociopolitical diversity is vital for scholarly inquiry, pedagogy, and for ethical professional practice. Recent research suggests that the assumptions underlying psychology’s value system of promoting racial, ethnic, gender, or sexual orientation diversity—that is, that doing so recognizes people’s personal identities, ameliorates discrimination, and has educational benefits—may be all the more compelling with respect to sociopolitical ideas.
AltmeyerR. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
2.
American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct (2002, amendedJune1, 2010). Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx
DeyE. L.OttM. C.AntonarosM.BarnhardtC. L.HolsappleM. A. (2011). Engaging diverse viewpoints: What is the campus climate for perspective-taking?Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
5.
GartnerJ. D. (1986). Antireligious prejudice in admissions to doctoral programs in clinical psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 17, 473–475.
6.
GlennN. D. (2001). Social science findings and the “family wars.”Society, 13–19.
7.
GrossN.FosseE. (2012). Why are professors liberal?Theory and Society, 41, 127–168.
8.
GrossN.SimmonsS. (2007). The social and political views of American professors. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Department of Sociology.
9.
HaidtJ. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834.
10.
HaidtJ. (2011, January). The bright future of post-partisan social psychology. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, San Antonio, TX.
11.
HaidtJ. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York, NY: Pantheon.
12.
HaidtJ.GrahamJ. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98–116.
13.
HaidtJ.RosenbergE.HomH. (2003). Differentiating diversities: Moral diversity is not like other kinds. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–36.
14.
HarrisB. (1986). Reviewing 50 years of the psychology of social issues. Journal of Social Issues, 42(1), 1–20.
15.
InbarY.LammersJ. (2012). Political diversity in social and personality psychology. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 7, 496–503.
16.
InskoC. A.NacosteR. W.MoeJ. L. (1983). Belief congruence and racial discrimination: Review of the evidence and critical evaluation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 153–174.
17.
JostJ. T.AmodioD. M. (2012). Political ideology as motivated social cognition: Behavioral and neuroscience evidence. Motivation and Emotion, 36, 55–64.
18.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375.
19.
KleinD. B.SternC. (2009a). By the numbers: The ideological profile of professors. In MarantoR.ReddingR. E.HessF. M. (Eds.), The politically correct university: Problems, scope and reforms (pp. 15–38). Washington, DC: AEI Press.
20.
KleinD. B.SternC. (2009b). Groupthink in academia: Majoritarian departmental policies and the professional pyramid. In MarantoR.ReddingR. E.HessF. M. (Eds.), The politically correct university: Problems, scope and reforms (pp. 79–98). Washington, DC: AEI Press.
21.
LakoffG. (2002). Moral policies: How liberals and conservatives think (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
22.
LillisJ.O’DonohueW. T.CucciareM.LillisE. (2005). Social justice in community psychology. In WrightR. H.CummingsN. A. (Eds.), Destructive trends in mental health: The well-intentioned path to harm (pp. 283–302). New York, NY: Routledge.
MacCounR. J. (1998). Biases in the interpretation and use of research results. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 259–287.
26.
MacCounR. J. (2005). Conflicts of interest in public policy research. In MooreD. A.CainD. M.LoewensteinG.BazermanM. (Eds.), Conflicts of interest: Problems and solutions from law, medicine, and organizational settings (pp. 233–262). London, England: Cambridge University Press.
27.
MacCounR. J.PaletzS. (2009). Citizens’ perceptions of ideological bias in research on public policy controversies. Political Psychology, 30(1), 43–65.
28.
MannixE.NealeM. A. (2005). What differences make a difference?: The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(2), 31–55.
29.
MarantoR.WoessnerM. (2012). Diversifying the academy: How conservative academics can thrive in liberal academia. PS: Political Science and Politics, 45(3), 469–474.
30.
MedinD. L.LeeC. D. (2012, May/June). Diversity makes better science. APS Observer, 25(5), 34–35.
31.
MurrayC. (1984). Losing ground: American social policy, 1950-1980. New York, NY: Basic Books.
32.
NieliR. K. (2004). The changing shape of the river: Affirmative action and recent social science research. Academic Questions,17, 7–59.
33.
PopenoeD. (1999). Life without father: Compelling new evidence that fatherhood and marriage are indispensible for the good of children and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34.
ReddingR. E. (2001). Sociopolitical diversity: The case for pluralism. American Psychologist, 56(3), 205–215.
35.
RothmanS.LichterS. R. (2009). The vanishing conservative—Is there a glass ceiling? In MarantoR.ReddingR. E.HessF. M. (Eds.), The politically correct university: Problems, scope and reforms (pp. 15–38). Washington, DC: AEI Press.
36.
SnidermanP. M.PiazzaT. (1993). The scar of race. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
37.
TetlockP. E.MitchellG. (1993). Liberal and conservative approaches to justice: Conflicting psychological portraits. In MellersB.BaronJ. (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on justice (pp. 234–255). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
38.
TetlockP. E.MitchellG. (2009). Implicit prejudice and accountability systems: What must organizations do to prevent discrimination? In StrawB. M.BriefA. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 29, pp. 3–38). New York, NY: Elsevier.
39.
WoessnerM.Kelly-WoessnerA. (2009). Left pipeline: Why conservatives don’t get doctorates. In MarantoR.ReddingR. E.HessF. M. (Eds.), The politically correct university: Problems, scope and reforms (pp. 38–59). Washington, DC: AEI Press.
40.
YanceyG. (2011). Compromising scholarship: Religious and political bias in American higher education. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.
