How Education Research Became a Partisan Issue

In “Straight Talk with Rick and Jal,” Harvard’s Jal Mehta and Rick Hess tackle the underlying forces shaping educational policy and research. Their mission: to cut through jargon and candidly discuss what’s truly happening in the field—this time, focusing on how personal, political, and institutional values influence education research.

Jal’s Perspective: Values Pervade the Research Process

Jal Mehta opens by acknowledging that values play a role at nearly every stage of educational research. What researchers choose to study—and what topics become priorities for the field—are heavily influenced by prevailing political, social, and cultural climates. For instance, recent years have seen a surge in research about anti-racism and equity, reflecting movements like Black Lives Matter. Rewind a decade, and topics like Common Core or No Child Left Behind were dominant. Looking forward, one can imagine future research fixating on issues like political polarization or responses to authoritarianism.

But the influence of values isn’t just about what gets researched. Drawing on Max Weber’s ideas, Mehta notes that it’s hard—if not impossible—to separate researchers’ values from how they interpret data and reach conclusions. Examples abound: Nathan Glazer’s skepticism of liberal social policies and Michael Harrington’s socialist leanings inevitably shaped their analyses and recommendations. Still, Mehta points out, rigorous scholarship has safeguards. Peer review, methodological standards, and demands for evidence limit—though do not remove—the sway of personal values. Critics often overstate the bias in academia, ignoring that formal standards and honest debate still exist.

Rick’s Response: Institutional Pressures and Progressive Consensus

Rick Hess responds with more skepticism, shaped by personal experience and years studying the academic landscape. He argues that the field isn’t just value-laden; it’s dominated by a progressive “groupthink.” Topics aligned with progressive politics—race, equity, restorative justice—are welcomed, while dissenting voices or alternative approaches are marginalized. Hess recalls being pushed out of the University of Virginia for challenging prevailing views on teacher licensure and school choice. He suggests it’s gotten even harder to challenge orthodoxy over time, noting that even journals and conference calls-for-papers seem to cater mainly to leftward research agendas.

While conservative and heterodox ideas aren’t entirely absent, they are often relegated to think tanks or niche publications. Hess observes that significant institutional structures—professional organizations, grant committees, hiring practices—often stifle debate by rewarding conformity and penalizing dissent. It’s not that all education scholars are of one mind, but rather that institutional incentives make it easier (and safer) to fit in, discouraging the kind of spirited debate and genuine inquiry that the academy is supposed to foster.

The Importance of Academic Integrity—and Its Costs

Mehta then reflects on the careers of his own mentors, notably Christopher Jencks and William Julius Wilson, as models of courage and integrity in scholarship. Both pursued findings that often ran afoul of political fashion on the left, and both paid a price socially and professionally. Mehta admits that even when he himself doubted the exclusive focus on race or the efficacy of certain anti-racist trainings, he hesitated to voice his concerns forcefully for fear of backlash. This, he says, is a common dilemma—balancing truth-telling with the urge to “go along to get along.”

Rick’s Broader Critique: Structural and Cultural Failings

Hess agrees there is a bravery deficit, but sees the problem as more systemic than personal. It’s unreasonable, he argues, to expect individual professors to risk their careers upholding heterodox ideas without institutional support. Leaders of professional organizations, journals, and universities should create an environment where principled disagreement is welcomed, not penalized—but, he laments, such leadership has been lacking. Too often, “movement politics” override dispassionate research.

As evidence, Hess references his experience running an Education Policy Academy for graduate students—a once-robust forum for debating tough topics. Over time, he says, even here discussion became dominated by received “correct” views; dissent was shared only quietly in private, not openly in group discussions. This is symptomatic of a wider culture of intellectual conformity.

Conclusion: The Way Forward

Both authors agree that falling into the trap of tailoring research and discourse to what’s “safe” or popular undermines the purpose of scholarship and harms public discussion. The field needs more scholars willing to pursue truth wherever it leads, even at personal cost—like Jencks, Wilson, and Paul Peterson—but without deeper changes to professional incentives and institutional structures, such figures will remain rare. If this doesn’t change, warn Mehta and Hess, education research—and the policy it informs—will become ever more partisan, narrow, and less trustworthy.