Are political/ideological reasons for career moves acceptable in academia?

Question

Suppose one is happy at one's institution until something happens that makes it impossible to stay given one's strong ideological beliefs. Is it a good idea to mention these beliefs if they are the main reason for wanting to move?

For example:

1. "Why do you want to study at this university?" Because this university is in Russia and I approve of Putin's actions as President.
2. "You've worked at this institution for 10 years. Why do you want to leave now?" Because it's in the UK and after the Brexit referendum, I no longer feel welcome here.

Nothing special about these examples; one could equally have "I want to leave Russia because I disapprove of Putin's actions as President" etc.

I tag this with "academic life" because it could apply to any decision to move.

Answer 1

I’ve found that, in general, scientists tend to be quite accepting of political or ideological motives as factors in career decisions. To some extent, this will even be true if they disagree with your politics.

That said, the cases you present obviously differ, and thus will engender different degrees of acceptance: the first case takes a strong, political, affirmative stance about something that doesn’t affect you personally. Whereas the second affects you directly.

To illustrate using a more direct comparison, consider these two statements:

1. I don’t want to work in the US because, as a muslim, I no longer feel welcome.
2. I don’t want to work in the US because I disapprove of the Trump administration.

Most (all?) reasonable people will accept (1) as a valid reason. Many (in Europe) will also accept (2) but it’s unarguably much more divisive (I speak from personal experience): even people who agree with you politically might not agree with such a decision.

Here’s another example: a former colleague turned down a position at a very prestigious institute (in favour of a much less prestigious one) because it would have meant working with stem cells, which she opposed on ethical grounds. I and others strongly disagree with her reasoning but we never had a problem accepting it, and it hasn’t impacted our impression of her as a researcher.

Answer 2

A political or ideological answer, albeit honest, is usually a missed opportunity to make a point about the move being a good academic fit.

Your goal as the candidate in this kind of exchange is not just to answer the questions accurately; it's to answer the questions accurately while also trying to convince the committee that you are the right person for the position. Virtually any question can be used to make a point about how excited you are about the institution you'd like to move to, how much you can contribute given your past experience, etc. A political answer doesn't usually help you "sell" yourself.

For example:

1. Why do you want to study at this university? "Because I'm really interested in the work Professor Twist is doing on basket weaving in extreme underwater conditions."
2. Why do you want to leave your current institution? "Because I am looking to gain expertise in the hot new field of basket weaving in extreme underwater conditions, and your faculty are the best in the world in that area, while my current institution doesn't have anyone working in this field." Or "Because I am really interested in working with Professor Twist, I think that with my background in freshwater basket weaving I could contribute to her research in an exciting way."

So even a completely non-controversial political or ideological reason is not necessarily the best reason to use in answer to this kind of question.

Answer 3

ff524 has covered the question from the angle of a PhD student hire, I will discuss it from the angle of (senior) faculty hires, which I think are slightly different in that regard.

If you have already, as you say, 10 years faculty at an institution you are presumably tenured there. When you then apply elsewhere, an undercurrent of the entire application process will be

"How do we know you really want to accept a potential offer, and not just negotiate with your home university?".

Topical fit as mentioned by ff524 is important, but not really a convincingly strong reason in that regard. A political answer may actually be stronger here, if convincing to the committee. Your Brexit example may, for instance, be convincing enough, as you can link it to reduced funding possibilities and potentially job security problems for your spouse. The Putin example - well, maybe it's helpful if the committee is full of die-hard Putin fans as well, but that one is more iffy as it does not so strongly impact academic life.

Obviously, a political answer that goes against the belief system of the committee is never going to help you. To use a recent loaded example, in most left-leaning universities arguing that you would really like to move to the US because the US, unlike your European home, allows you to buy a semi-automatic weapon with relative ease, is neither a convincing reason for a move nor will it strike brownie points on an emotional level with many faculty members.

So to summarize:

Suppose one is happy at one's institution until something happens that makes it impossible to stay given one's strong ideological beliefs. Is it a good idea to mention these beliefs if they are the main reason for wanting to move?

Yes, if (a) the reason will appear to be a "big thing" to most people, (b) the committee is likely to share your view, and (c) it can be linked to impacting your academic life.

Answer 4

Context: I am from Czech Republic, where high tier positions, including academia, were strongly influenced or directly managed by the government fully controlled by the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. Usually, one needed to be member of the Party to get the position (in some cases it was the only requirement).

You first example will seem odd to me. One seldom decide an instution because of the political system of the target country. The "pros" are usually more broad than the "cons" to say "I have chosen this perticullar institution because of the political system here."

On the other hand the second example you gave, is in "my" context acceptable reason to leave. There is a political change you are not willingfull to accept and you don't find a way how to live with that change. Reasoning that you can no more accept the backgroud you were living in for years is acceptable as well, it may trigger two questions: "Why did you decide it is enough for you at this moment?" and "What did keep you there agains your beliefs for so long?"

There were 3 waves of political exodus in Czechoslovakia in the last century. 1938, when Protektorät Böhmen un Mähren was estabilished, 1948 after communist putch and 1968 after the Soviet invasion terminating the loosen rule of the Communist Party here.

The decision to leave the position after X years of working there doesn't need to be triggered by the change in the country government. The change of the rector, dean or department head is also acceptable reason for a change. Outside the academia, the company merger is also acceptable reason to leave when you do not accept the buyer's policy.

Answer 5

Once you take it to the extreme, the answer will become an obvious yes. Take for example the position of some medical researchers in Nazi Germany.

Meaning that it is acceptable. However, some issues might be seen by others as too small to be of importance, or a bit odd. And of course, your reasons might upset someone else who has a different opinion on a topic, such as the two sides of your Putin example.

Answer 6

tl;dr: 1. Don't tell your superiors nor HR. 2. Consider staying and being politically active.

Suppose one is happy at one's institution until something happens that makes it impossible to stay given one's strong ideological beliefs.

Are you sure it's impossible to stay - or is it impossible to stay and not get highly active in trying to influence surrounding society? If you've lived someplace long enough, if you've set down some roots, if you feel it's important to you, perhaps you should stay and struggle.

In my public/political activities, especially within academia (mostly union business), I was very exasperated at people who agreed with us just leaving or withdrawing.

For the rest of this answer, suppose that you're leaving and it's final.

Is it a good idea to mention these beliefs if they are the main reason for wanting to move?

Faculty-management relations, and to a great extent even junior-researcher-tenured-senior-researcher relations are too confrontational in economic class terms for you to be committed to be forthcoming with them. Specific circumstances might differ, but - unfortunately - they're not your friends and are not committed to you and yours. Only tell them what they need to know.

As for personal acquaintances at work - now that's different; it depends on your specific relationship with each individual.

But of course - you could also go for the entirely-public option, if the reason you're leaving really pains you: Making a public statement at some faculty event, publishing an open letter to all faculty and local press, putting up posters as you leave etc. That's again if you think it'll have an effect and are willing to burn some bridges.

Now for your examples:

"Why do you want to study at this university?" Because this university is in Russia and I approve of Putin's actions as President.

Bad example, not buying this at all. I mean, if you said this, people would assume, and be right, that you're just giving them a bad lie, or rather, that you're not willing to tell them the truth and are mocking them instead. Now, that's irrespective of whether you approve of Putin's presidency or not; people who do would not move to Russia because of it. So I'm ignoring this example.

one could equally have "I want to leave Russia because I disapprove of Putin's actions as President" etc.

That wouldn't be convincing either. If you were worried about some specific actions of the Putin-led government, that's something else, but this sounds like a lie. Plus, Putin has been in power forever, and you've just decided that bothers you? ...

"You've worked at this institution for 10 years. Why do you want to leave now?" Because it's in the UK and after the Brexit referendum, I no longer feel welcome here.

Yeah, so this is exactly what I was talking about. Try: "It has been 10 years - a full decade! I feel I need a change in my life - I'm too settled into my routine." Or tell them it's for personal reasons relating to your family, and say you'd rather not discuss the details. Or whatever works. Better not to lie, either; just list other priorities that weigh in favor of leaving.

Answer 7

I did my BSc, MSc and PhD in Russia, and I was Russian citizen up until 2020. I left Russia to work abroad in 2011. My main reason was political disagreement with Russian President, Government and establishment.

When asked about my reasons to leave Russia, whether in social or workplace setting, I never hesitated to explain that the reasons were political. If this was an interview talk, I would focus on academic reasons during the interview, but reveal more about political reasons during the interview lunch. I feel that academics generally are curious about the political views of their potential colleagues and like to see that the disagreements over politics won't compromise workplace relations or cause any conflicts. This concerns the views per se, but even more importantly the communication skills and the ability to express your points clearly but diplomatically and remain professional at all times.

In my early days I did feel sometimes that I was not able to find the right moment or the right balance when talking about politics, and it might have had a negative effect on my interviews. As I grew more confident with my communication skills and improved my ability to control myself during the long and emotionally difficult interview, I now believe that a balanced and proportional mention of political views usually has a positive effect, as it gives my potential colleagues more information about myself, which helps them to make a decision.

On reflection, I think that talking about your political views as the reason for career change is not very different from explaining gaps in your career due to illness or childcare responsibilities or other personal factors. People feel that they need an answer, but as soon as they have any reasonable answer, they are satisfied and don't care much anymore about the details.

Answer 8

Both of the examples you give in your post involve ideological dispositions in relation to the country a university is located in, rather than the nature of the particular university itself. I would think the more common case where this would be relevant would be where an academic holds to a political ideology that is either welcome or unwelcome in the particular university (e.g., if a university has a strong political culture that is either consistent with or contradictory to the academic's beliefs).

Obviously you can prefer a particular university for all sorts of reasons, including it being welcoming to your political/ideological beliefs. There are many university departments (or entire universities) where a particular ideological culture holds sway, and it is not uncommon for people to self-select along ideological lines to some degree. Notwithstanding this, I think an interview panel would be unimpressed if this was a major reason for selecting their university - it might suggest that you are inhibited or unwilling to work in an environment where your own views are not the majority view.

In view of the examples you mention, it is also worth noting that if you were to state a preference for a particular university based primarily on the political conditions of the country it is located in (which might be at odds with the prevailing political ideology of the university), then this would be extremely foolish. Just imagine applying for a position in the sociology department at Berkeley and making a point of telling them, "I really want to work here in the US because I love Trump!"