Many articles have been published in recent years that explain why ideological homogeneity is bad for science, and exploring possible remedies. On this page we list the ones that we think are most helpful or most important. We focus on academic books and articles, but include a few from the popular press.

General Statements (across fields)

  1. Pinker, S. (2007). Preface to What is your dangerous idea? Reprinted on
    Excerpt: “it’s hard to imagine any aspect of public life where ignorance or delusion is better than an awareness of the truth, even an unpleasant one. Only children and madmen engage in “magical thinking,” the fallacy that good things can come true by believing in them or bad things will disappear by ignoring them or wishing them away. Rational adults want to know the truth, because any action based on false premises will not have the effects they desire. “
  2. Pinker, S. (2002). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. New York: Viking. [see especially chapter 6, on moralistic scientists]
  3. Shields, J. A. & Dunn Sr., J. M. (2016). Passing on the Right: Conservative Professors in the Progressive University. To be published in early 2016; Amazon pre-ordering available. 
  4. Langbert, M. (2016). Neil Gross’s Plantation Model of the Academic Labor Market. Academic Questions. doi: DOI 10.1007/s12129-016-9546-z


Here is a link to our blog posts tagged “psychology”

A more comprehensive list can be found at at Best Practices in Science: Political Bias

  1. Duarte, J. L., Crawford, J. T., Stern, C., Haidt, J., Jussim, L., & Tetlock, P.E. (2015). Political diversity will improve social psychological science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X14000430 [See our summary here]
  2. Tetlock, P. (1994). Political Psychology or Politicized Psychology: Is the Road to Scientific Hell Paved with Good Moral Intentions? Political Psychology. [ungated version]
  3. Eagly, A. H. (2016). When Passionate Advocates Meet Research on Diversity, Does the Honest Broker Stand a Chance? Journal of Social Issues. doi: 10.1111/josi.12163
  4. Tetlock, P. E. & Mitchell, G. (2015). Why so Few Conservatives and Should we Care?. doi: 10.1007/s12115-014-9850-6. This article is from a symposium in Society  on Neil Gross’s Liberals and Conservatives in Academia
  5. Redding, R. E. (2001). Sociopolitical diversity in psychology: The case for pluralism. American Psychologist, 56(3), 205-215. [ungated].  See also: responses by Wester & Vogel (2002), Sampson (2002), Brand (2002)
  6. Redding, R. E. (2012). Likes attract: The sociopolitical groupthink of (Social) psychologists. Perspectives on Psychological Science. [ungated]
  7. Inbar, Y., & Lammers, J. (2012). Political diversity in social and personality psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science. doi: 10.1177/1745691612448792 [ungated]
  8. Jussim, Crawford, Anglin, & Stevens (2015).  Ideological bias in social psychological research.  In J. Forgas, K. Fiedler, & W. Crano (eds), Social Psychology and Politics.  New York: Psychology Press.
  9. Jussim, Crawford, Stevens, & Anglin (in press).  The politics of social psychological science: Distortions in the social psychology of intergroup relations.  In P. Valdesolo and J. Graham (eds), Social Psychology of Political Polarization.  New York: Psychology Press.
  10. Jussim, Crawford, Stevens, Anglin, & Duarte (in press).  Can high moral purposes undermine scientific integrity?  To appear in J. Forgas, P. van Lange, & L. Jussim (eds), The Sydney Symposium on the Social Psychology of Morality.  New York: Psychology Press.
  11. Jussim, L. (2012). Liberal privilege in academic psychology and the social sciences: Commentary on Inbar & Lammers (2012). Perspectives on Psychological Science7, 504-507.
  12. Jussim, L., Crawford, J. T., & Rubinstein, R. S. (2015). Stereotype (In)Accuracy in Perceptions of Groups and IndividualsCurrent Directions in Psychological Science. doi: 10.1177/0963721415605257


  1. Custred, G. (2016). Turning anthropology from science into political activism. 

Sociology and Criminology

Here is a link to our blog posts tagged “sociology”

  1. Martin, C. C. (2015), How ideology has hindered sociological insight. American Sociologist. doi: 10.1007/s12108-015-9263-z [ungated]
  2. Smith, C. (2015). The Sacred Project of American Sociology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  3. Deflem, M. (2013). The structural transformation of sociology. Society. doi: 10.1007/s12115-013-9634-4 [ungated]
  4. Yancey, G. (2015). Compromising Scholarship. Baylor U. Press.
  5. Klein, D. B., & Stern, C. (2006). Sociology and classical liberalism. The Independent Review.
  6. Wright, J., & DeLisi, M. (2016). Conservative Criminology: A Call to Restore Balance in the Social Sciences. New York: Routledge.


  1. van der Vossen, B. (in press). In defense of the ivory tower: Why philosophers should stay out of politics. Philosophical Psychology.


  1. Rosenkranz, N. Q. (2014), Intellectual diversity in the legal academy. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy
  2. McGinnis, J. O., Schwartz, M. W., & Tisdell, B. (2004). The patterns and implications of political contributions by elite law school faculty. Georgetown Law Journal, 93, 1167
  3. Lindgren, J. (2015). Measuring diversity: Law faculties in 1997 and 2013. Northwestern Law & Econ Research Paper No. 15-07; Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 15-17.

On Free Speech

  1. Pinker, S. (2015). Why free speech is fundamental. Boston Globe.
  2. Lukianoff, G. (2014) Freedom from speech.

Voices of Students

Popular Articles


  • AAUP (American Assoc. of University Professors)
  • FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education)
  • NCAC (National Coalition Against Censorship)
  • NAS (National Association of Scholars)


“America has come so far…We’re less racist, sexist, homophobic and anti specific religions than we used to be. We have one remaining bigotry: We don’t want to be around anyone who disagrees with us.” – President Bill Clinton

Critiques of Heterodox Academy