Is Academia "Dominated" by "the Left", and If so, Why?

[Heyo]

An accusation that is frequently brought forth by people on the right side of the political spectrum is that "the left" has "dominated" higher education. Without going too much into detail who "the left" is, I like to focus on how "the left" came to "dominate" (control) the academic process. What secret weapon, which sinister cabal got "the left" into that position? (If they really are in control, are they?)

I have my own hypothesis, but I like to hear some others first before I chime in.

 

[Stevicus]

An accusation that is frequently brought forth by people on the right side of the political spectrum is that "the left" has "dominated" higher education. Without going too much into detail who "the left" is, I like to focus on how "the left" came to "dominate" (control) the academic process. What secret weapon, which sinister cabal got "the left" into that position? (If they really are in control, are they?)

I have my own hypothesis, but I like to hear some others first before I chime in.

I suppose it would depend on how one would characterize "dominating" higher education. The basic idea may have originated with perceptions of the Ivy League and associated colleges being considered academia's "elite corps," which have been dominated by the Northeastern "old money" establishment. I don't know that they were really that "liberal" or "left," but I suppose on a relative scale, that may be true.

I don't know how every college out there operates, but the one I went to is a big sports-dominated school. The football team, basketball team; we've also had a respectable baseball program, too. Other departments might also get major endowments and grants. They seem to have to present themselves more as "corporatized" in order to stay competitive and on par with their peers in the academic community. They have to present a certain image in the public eye, just like any large organization or public institution.

So, it's probably more corporate dominated, although I suppose they might have certain liberal or progressive ideals which some conservatives and rightists might interpret as "leftist," but I don't see any real obvious indications that academia is "dominated by the left."

 

[PureX]

Academia is not dominated by "the left".

Intelligent people tend to be intelligent because they are open to new ideas and they share and encourage that trait with their students. But academics are also quite conservative in that they actively seek to maintain and protect the status quo in terms of collective human knowledge.

Radical conservatives (a contradiction in terms, I know, what they really are is fascists) try to paint academia as being far left because they want to demonize intelligence. They want uneducated people to distrust educated people so they can be more easily deceived and controlled, and in ways that are detrimental to them.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

You need a certain level of intelligence and learning skills to be an academic.
This is true in all countries.
By their nature they tend to be progressive.
Which answers it's own question.
It becomes it's own sorting device.
Why the dumb chose the right is less clear and more difficult to explain.
But they are less able to form reasoned opinions on their own.

 

[Secret Chief]

An accusation that is frequently brought forth by people on the right side of the political spectrum is that "the left" has "dominated" higher education. Without going too much into detail who "the left" is, I like to focus on how "the left" came to "dominate" (control) the academic process. What secret weapon, which sinister cabal got "the left" into that position? (If they really are in control, are they?)

I have my own hypothesis, but I like to hear some others first before I chime in.

Is this primarily an American thing? When I come across it, it's invariably involving Americans...

 

[exchemist]

An accusation that is frequently brought forth by people on the right side of the political spectrum is that "the left" has "dominated" higher education. Without going too much into detail who "the left" is, I like to focus on how "the left" came to "dominate" (control) the academic process. What secret weapon, which sinister cabal got "the left" into that position? (If they really are in control, are they?)

I have my own hypothesis, but I like to hear some others first before I chime in.

Universities have always been a bit radical, from medieval times. You have young people with intelligence and read books, some of whom thereby become idealists - but who have little money or possessions, so have little stake in the status quo ante. There are exceptions of course (like @Rival ) but as a rule the "intelligentsia" is almost never right wing.

 

[Altfish]

An accusation that is frequently brought forth by people on the right side of the political spectrum is that "the left" has "dominated" higher education. Without going too much into detail who "the left" is, I like to focus on how "the left" came to "dominate" (control) the academic process. What secret weapon, which sinister cabal got "the left" into that position? (If they really are in control, are they?)

I have my own hypothesis, but I like to hear some others first before I chime in.

I suspect that the real issue is that those on the 'right' making these claims wouldn't work for the paltry salaries offered by academia.

 

[Balthazzar]

My guess is that it may be due to curriculum and staff. Dominated may be a stretch, but it's difficult to deny that higher education has its share of left leaning professors, which is great so long as there is an equal amount of more right leaning professors available and accessible for potential students. Choices of which college or university isn't always left up to the students. Sometimes, they are only able to attend those institutions that accept their applications. The question I present is how these institutions are staffed.; Dominated by which type of professors?

 

[Valjean]

Is this primarily an American thing? When I come across it, it's invariably involving Americans...

Well, the American Republican party does tend to attract simplistic and emotionally motivated thinkers, and appeals to traditionalists with opinions derived from team loyalty and insecurity, rather than critical analysis.

Many parents and church leaders warn against sending kids to college, fearing it ma ymake them question the values and customs of their status communities.

 

[Revoltingest]

Potential factors.....
- Critical mass, ie, liberals will tend to hire their own.
- A more fundamentalist religious orientation
can interfere with objectivity, & can annoy the
less religious.
- Conservatives might tend to seek "new" to a lesser
extent, which isn't productive in advancing a field
of inquiry.
- Their penchant for wearing bow ties.

 

[Nakosis]

An accusation that is frequently brought forth by people on the right side of the political spectrum is that "the left" has "dominated" higher education. Without going too much into detail who "the left" is, I like to focus on how "the left" came to "dominate" (control) the academic process. What secret weapon, which sinister cabal got "the left" into that position? (If they really are in control, are they?)

I have my own hypothesis, but I like to hear some others first before I chime in.

Title IX.

Title IX was tied to funding. Title IX basically ties funding to being non-discriminatory to sex, gender, gender identity. So the folks in charge of college funding went all out to remove any perception of any gender discrimination. Any professors or staff who didn't agree with the direction gender identity was taking either had to keep quite about it or risk being removed.

Campuses have to at least be perceived as left leaning wrt gender identity to continue to get government funding. This alone I think angered a percentage of the right who voiced their opposition which only adds more fuel to the perception.

 

[Balthazzar]

Potential factors.....
- Critical mass, ie, liberals will tend to hire their own.
- A more fundamentalist religious orientation
can interfere with objectivity, & can annoy the
less religious.
- Conservatives might tend to seek "new" to a lesser
extent, which isn't productive in advancing a field
of inquiry.
- Their penchant for wearing bow ties.

A couple comments I've noted from separate posters suggest that people who lean to the right lack critical thinking skills for the analyzing of curriculum and that they likewise lack objectivity and are less prone to accept new paradigms ultimately hindering potential advances in certain fields of study. This seems almost arrogant and dogmatic. On your first point, I'm of the mind that a more diverse staff would be profitable for academic equality. I don't like bow ties. T-shirt and pants make up the majority of my wardrobe.

 

[Revoltingest]

A couple comments I've noted from separate posters suggest that people who lean to the right lack critical thinking skills for the analyzing of curriculum and that they likewise lack objectivity and are less prone to accept new paradigms ultimately hindering potential advances in certain fields of study. This seems almost arrogant and dogmatic. On your first point, I'm of the mind that a more diverse staff would be profitable for academic equality. I don't like bow ties. T-shirt and pants make up the majority of my wardrobe.

It's possible that people leaning right have
less critical thinking skills. I don't know.
But if so, I'd expect the difference with the
left to be small relative to individual
variation.

 

[Balthazzar]

It's possible that people leaning right have
less critical thinking skills. I don't know.
But if so, I'd expect the difference with the
left to be small relative to individual
variation.

Some people I'm sure and vice versa. Question: Do you acknowledge the politically motivated partisan warfare playing out in our academic institutions?

 

[Revoltingest]

Some people I'm sure and vice versa. Question: Do you acknowledge the politically motivated partisan warfare in our academic institutions?

Yes.
I've seen it first hand when I was in school (U of Mich).

 

[Balthazzar]

Bart ... Dean Simmons is ok with hiring a more diverse staff of professors, but he insists on having final say in who is hired. As you know, he's been rubbing shoulders with our long-standing liberal mayor and her friends. Now, I'm a conservative republican and I may only be a secretary, but doesn't this strike you as being potentially detrimental to our aim to diversify? I've seen more than a few conservative professors who when standing next to a silver tongued liberal seem incompetent. I've seen this same dynamic play out in favor of a few republicans when standing next to a less competent liberal, also.

Jim ... You're being paranoid.

 

[Balthazzar]

Title IX.

Title IX was tied to funding. Title IX basically ties funding to being non-discriminatory to sex, gender, gender identity. So the folks in charge of college funding went all out to remove any perception of any gender discrimination. Any professors or staff who didn't agree with the direction gender identity was taking either had to keep quite about it or risk being removed.

Campuses have to at least be perceived as left leaning wrt gender identity to continue to get government funding. This alone I think angered a percentage of the right who voiced their opposition which only adds more fuel to the perception.

I can honestly see the truth in this, particularly given the history of conservative thought. This alone would give the left more advantage in our higher learning institutions.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Academia is not dominated by "the left".

Intelligent people tend to be intelligent because they are open to new ideas and they share and encourage that trait with their students. But academics are also quite conservative in that they actively seek to maintain and protect the status quo in terms of collective human knowledge.

Radical conservatives (a contradiction in terms, I know, what they really are is fascists) try to paint academia as being far left because they want to demonize intelligence. They want uneducated people to distrust educated people so they can be more easily deceived and controlled, and in ways that are detrimental to them.

I agree for the most part. However, I know some very conservative academics who are quite devoted to the life of the mind and research. A small, biased, sample I know. But most colleges and universities today are extremely liberal/progressive places - even many private religious ones.

 

[PureX]

Title IX.

Title IX was tied to funding. Title IX basically ties funding to being non-discriminatory to sex, gender, gender identity. So the folks in charge of college funding went all out to remove any perception of any gender discrimination. Any professors or staff who didn't agree with the direction gender identity was taking either had to keep quite about it or risk being removed.

Campuses have to at least be perceived as left leaning wrt gender identity to continue to get government funding. This alone I think angered a percentage of the right who voiced their opposition which only adds more fuel to the perception.

I can't think of any reason why a college professor should be spouting off his or her own personal opinions regarding sex or gender or anything else related to political partisan social bickering. And if asked by students, they could very easily decline to answers based on the fact that their own opinions have no relevance to the curriculum they are charged with teaching.

The idea that there is some sort of thought police on college campuses forcing conservative professors to keep their mouths shut is just foolish. Common sense should tell them to keep their opinions to themselves, liberal or conservative. As those are not what they are being paid to 'profess'.

My experience with college was in the visual arts. And the one sure sign of a BAD professor in a BAD visual arts school was a classroom full of "proteges" dutifully mimicking their professor's artwork and ideals.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

While it's true that there is a big influence of liberality in academia, it varies a great deal by field. My experience was that fields like Law were not at all liberal, and the faculty of the physical sciences tended to be more full-spectrum. The business school tends towards conservative, and so on. The humanities tend to be more liberal, but religious studies, a subfield, tends to be more conservative.

But overall, the basic idea of education is 'liberal' and consequently more likely to be pursued and inhabited by liberals. In my experience and opinion, others' mileage may vary.