The statistics we have presented here do suggest a real unfairness in philosophy texts, and no doubt conservative academics and students have a right to feel they are being denied equal air time. But the deeper point here is not just about making sure that yet another interest group gets its "fair share." Contemporary moral problems presented in anthologies and logic textbooks reflect a deeply disturbing view that goes beyond any particular political opinion. The preponderance of authors and editors seem to think that reason establishes the truth of liberalism; that, correlatively, conservative views result largely from shoddy reasoning. Conservative opinions are implicitly or explicitly labeled unreasonable. The textbooks suggest that anyone who thinks properly about the issues will reach liberal—in some cases it seems fair to say radical—conclusions.
To teach students that is to convey an unfortunate message indeed. For it denies that rational people can reason correctly about many difficult moral and political issues and still reach different conclusions. It denies that we can make progress on such issues by reasoning cooperatively together. And, by failing to distinguish between logical and political considerations, it discourages students from developing a critical distance on their own convictions. The political bias we found is objectionable not merely because it disadvantages a certain body of opinion, but because it betrays the goals of both rationality and justice.
(Daniel Bonevac and Robert Koons, "Partisan Logic: An Analysis of the Content of American Philosophy Texts," Academic Questions 3 [fall 1990]: 23-34, at 33 [italics in original; endnote omitted])
