Despite the great potential for diversity to serve as a clarion call to break down harmful boundaries between people, there still exists as part of the human condition a longing for the familiar and the comfortable. We find people associating with one another based on common tasks, beliefs or opportunities. The field of psychology takes the entire realm of human experience and behavior as its topic matter, and hence one would expect an openness and desire to study all things human. An illuminating and some might say embarrassing moment occurred last week, the New York Times reported, at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology’s conference where topics such as racial prejudice, homophobia, sexism and unconscious bias against minorities were studied. Professor Jonathan Haidt brought to everyone’s attention an interesting skew of the political leanings of the attendees:

“He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.

“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals.

“Anywhere in the world that social psychologists see women or minorities underrepresented by a factor of two or three, our minds jump to discrimination as the explanation,” said Dr. Haidt, who called himself a longtime liberal turned centrist. “But when we find out that conservatives are underrepresented among us by a factor of more than 100, suddenly everyone finds it quite easy to generate alternate explanations.”

Now one explanation for this might be that psychologists work in universities and in this environment it is known that the majority of professors opt for left-of-center political viewpoints. This begs the question: Why does this shift occur in universities? One Times respondent noted that professors working with a secure job in an atmosphere different from the demands of the business world where marketplace capitalism and simple economics set up a different set of daily demands. While one might question the generalizability of this “hands up” study, it is good to point out that a review of the political leanings in the journal of a large national psychological association indicated over 90 percent of the articles had a predominant liberal bent. Now some might see this as an opportunity to make claims of bias or prejudice but before doing so it is good to remember St. Ignatius’s caution that “every good Christian ought to be more eager to put a good interpretation on a neighbor’s statement than to condemn it.” So we recall that the psychologists have ethics that teaching psychologists must always strive to present all sides of a topic and let’s hope in good faith that this is happening.

Dr. Haidt had some intriguing advice for psychologists who might have inadvertently (again, a presupposition of Charity) found themselves easing toward one end of the normal curve on political doctrine and that was to consider reading National Review or Thomas Sowell. For psychologists who practice in clinics, schools or hospitals this advice is also important for many of the clients who come to psychologists for assistance will partake in the ideas described and developed in these sources. If not out of respect, it is good to understand these viewpoints because of a practical or business sense. One might even wonder if a similar phenomena of polarization of viewpoints occurs within another realm—say, the study and discussion of religion and theology. If so, the fields of psychology and religion may face similar challenges.

There are several approaches to this problem. One may build bridges or one may clarify strong boundaries, for as Robert Frost said, “Good fences make good neighbors.” I like taking Katharine Hepburn’s words, applying them not to the sexes but in a metaphorical way to getting along with those who think differently than oneself. “Sometimes I wonder if men and women really suit each other,” said Hepburn. “Perhaps they should live next to each other and visit now and then.”

 William Van Ornum is professor of psychology at Marist College and director of research and development/grants at American Mental Health Foundation in New York City. He studied theology and scripture at DePaul University.