I'm with you on pretty much all of this, including the pessimism about whether it could happen. I suppose my prediction is that academia will shrink, and future generations of scientists will increasingly orient their careers around going into industry and/or getting private grants and doing research with more immediate commercial applications.
The American Academe as we understand it was constructed after WW2 from the consolidation and centralization of the Old Republic's decentralized, diversified, and pluralistic academe, I never knew about, it appears it was a wonderful space, we never should have done that.
I'm not so sure about that, it depends where we go. I had been completely unaware of aspects of our past, and the socio-economic theories of the Old Republic, it appears that education, government, banking/finance, politics, and industry are always deeply interconnected and in symbiotic relationship with each other, if we decentralize and return to deliberate redundancy and policy variability then I suspect we'll see many flowers bloom.
The easiest ways is through the measures I mentioned in the article. Lines with AOS/AOC's in conservative thought. Interdepartmental institutions for development of conservative thought. Basically undertake an effort to hire and fund people whose academic freedom is likely to take them to the right, or at least not to the left. We know how to do this. We've been doing it with left-leaning scholarship for years. (Think of all the PhilJobs postings with AOS/AOC in race/gender/indigenous/post-colonial/etc, and replace them with postings with AOS/AOC in faith/family/patriotism/etc). Better to never have slanted postings like that in the first place, but the left-wingers have already been hired, and hiring up balance is better than purges.
Also, the administration enjoys no academic freedom in their student programming. More aggressive purges are appropriate there. Faculty senate needs to pass a resolution and then work with the Board of Trustees to depoliticize Student Life.
I wouldn't say that this is exactly "realistic" though. I think any measures that would be adequate to the task of soothing Republican animus are so far outside the self-conception of the typical academic that the only realistic path forward leads to the partisan degradation of higher education for the indefinite future. We have sewed, and the time of the reaping is here. The beatings will continue.
Is it consistent with faculty academic freedom for,. eg, the university dean or president to mandate the AOS of a new (or newly-vacated) tenure-track position in the philosophy department? Or are you hoping that when someone retires, the current faculty will decide on their own to advertise for the desired AOSs? I see how it might work if the administration creates new units from scratch, but that's not an easy think to pull off (but not impossible, UNC is doing something like that).
My main point is about what must be done, not about who should take the lead on doing it. But yes, this must be a faculty initiative. (This is why I'm pessimistic it will be done.)
Thanks for sharing this perspective. Your post raises an important question: Is the overwhelming leftward tilt in higher education a problem, and if so, what should be done about it?
There's no doubt that most universities lean left, particularly in the humanities and social sciences. If ideological diversity is an intellectual asset—and it is—then it's worth considering how to foster a more balanced academic environment.
But is the solution to actively engineer conservative representation through hiring preferences?
The argument made suggests that universities should deliberately hire more conservative scholars to counterbalance the left's dominance, mirroring how academic hiring has often prioritized race, gender, and progressive perspectives.
But this raises an uncomfortable question: Is this just affirmative action for conservatives?
For years, many on the right have opposed affirmative action, arguing that hiring should be based on merit, not identity or ideology. Yet, here, the proposed fix is... hiring quotas for conservatives? If ideological hiring is bad when it benefits progressives, why is it acceptable when it benefits conservatives?
More troublingly, this argument frames universities as responsible for their own defunding. It suggests that if academia faces budget cuts, it's because they haven't sufficiently accommodated conservative viewpoints—essentially blaming the victim rather than questioning those wielding the budget axe. This creates a dangerous dynamic where intellectual institutions must reshape themselves to appease whoever controls political power at the moment.
This raises serious concerns:
- Should universities adjust their faculty to match political power rather than pursue truth and scholarship?
- If a future administration demands more progressive hiring, would conservatives accept that logic in reverse?
The real question is whether academia should be shaped by academic rigor or political pressure. If universities become battlefields for ideological quotas, we risk turning education into a partisan institution where knowledge is validated by its political acceptability rather than its intellectual merit.
Political diversity matters—but the solution to bias isn't counter-bias, and the answer to funding threats shouldn't be institutional capitulation. The way forward isn't hiring quotas for conservatives, nor is it political engineering masquerading as reform. If the goal is to protect free inquiry, the answer must always be more freedom, not ideological hiring mandates.
First, I take issue with the idea that deliberate hiring of conservatives is inimical to truth and scholarship. I'm persuaded by the argument that excellent scholarship on politically relevant topics is impossible in the absence of ideological diversity. Hiring non-progressives should be seen as an absolutely central imperative in universities FROM THE STANDPOINT OF TRUTH AND SCHOLARSHIP. Heterodox Academy has been making this case for years now, and they're right. But despite this, their arguments haven't persuaded. So in addition to that correct argument, I'm drawing attention to the practical effects of our past bias, and arguing that the consequences are much more dire than people realize.
It sucks to change our practices partly in response to political pressure. But academia has always been shaped by political pressure. In a perfect world, that would not be the case. Alas, ours is not a perfect world. And importantly, this would not mark the beginning of political corruption of the academic mission. "If universities become battlefields for ideological quotas, we risk turning education into a partisan institution where knowledge is validated by its political acceptability rather than its intellectual merit." The time for that warning was a decade ago. Progressive activists have already turned substantial portions of education into a partisan institution where knowledge is validated by its political acceptability rather than its intellectual merit.
The best of all possible worlds is one where politically biased hiring never took place. The question is how we should respond to this past blunder.
So in light of the facts that conservative hiring will be good from the standpoint of truth and scholarship, and that failing to respond will also lead to deep ongoing attacks from those who control our funding, I think we should be actively trying to restore ideological balance in academia rather than hoping that it happens by coincidence in the face of ongoing anti-conservative discrimination.
As a university scientist I agree with much of what you are saying. For years I have been telling my colleagues about the stuff happening on the other side of campus. Most of them rolled their eyes and basically said "Whatever, they are irrelevant and I have real stuff to worry about". HOWEVER: we in the sciences are not innocent. Our academic societies, our journals, have been captured by the "woke" (for lack of better term) ideology. Many of our colleagues have been pushing in this direction within our own science departments, especially the younger ones. We are now paying the price.
I agree with you that academia does need more conservative voices, if only because I’d prefer to be fighting with smart conservatives instead of whatever the hell this is. But a huge difficulty is that at this point conservative thought isn’t just about rejecting or questioning the more controversial leftwing commitments, but rejects global warming, and seems to be moving into vaccine skepticism, too. It’s unclear if Republicans are even okay with orthodox economics anymore. Very hard to know how you could compromise with them without tenuring a bunch of obvious cranks.
Sure, but I don’t think Spencer getting a job would appease the right, tbh. And a lot of people of all political persuasions should have jobs but don’t.
Or to put this another way, you’re assuming that conservatives are cutting science funding to indirectly target leftwing studies. But given the appointment of Kennedy, refusal to get Covid vaccines, hatred of Fauci, etc, plus decades of rejecting evolution, isn’t the more likely answer that they hate science and scientists, too?
There are anti intellectual elements on the right, but also right wing intellectuals. The anti intellectual elements are ascendant now, but that particular trend is hardly inevitable. It is also at least partly downstream from the fact that academia has been strongly anti-conservative. We've negatively polarized the conservative movement into being anti-intellectual. That's really bad and we should stop!
There's lots of people that should have jobs but don't. If academics made a concerted effort to minimize the number of people in that group who are conservative, that would have salutary effects on academia.
We can also encourage a blossoming of conservative thought in this way. If it became widely known that high quality intellectual work on conservative thought was the "new hot thing" and a free ticket to a good job, there would be much more high quality conservative intellectual thought. That would mend many rifts.
You use "they" like there's a single, undifferentiated bloc here. There are still plenty of swing voters, and people who swing from staying home to voting or vice versa. While I think you're right that there are some people who are so skeptical about higher ed as to be unreachable, it doesn't remotely follow that no right leaning skeptics of higher ed could be won over by the sorts of olive branches Matt is describing.
In general, we overestimate how many people have the cluster of views paradigmatic of the extremes of the political spectrum in the US. (the "hidden tribes" survey was nice on this. )
I suspect you're conflating normative and descriptive questions. I didn't say anything about "good faith". I'm saying plenty of Trump voters--heck, plenty of people who swung from Biden in 2020 to nobody in 2024, of which there were a lot--are persuadable. I mean that as a descriptive claim. It's compatible with the normative claim that they made a serious mistake in not interpreting Jan 6 the way you or I do. Unless you think anybody who doesn't understand Jan 6 the way you or I do must completely unpersuadable--must not be a swing voter in any sense--in which case I think it's just a thoroughly mistaken descriptive claim.
I agree that there should be more ideological diversity in academia and if faculty ensure that happens, it might lessen some right-wing anger, but I'm skeptical that will be enough to ward off the figurative beatings conservatives want to mete out.
I think what explains right-wing hostility is not only the actions of leftists, but that so many conservatives are glued to media that is used to stoke their outrage. Even if there were ideological parity among professors, colleges and universities could still be places in which progressive ideas are freely expressed. Such expressions of liberal/left opinions will be passed around conservative media in order to gin up outrage and get attention on video clips and podcasts.
A clip of a blue-haired 19-year-old with a septum ring saying some silly things on a college campus is still going to be become the fixture of 10-minute segments presented by Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh, who will ruthlessly mock her and use her as an example of why college is evil and dumb etc.
This in turn will inform what Republican voters want out of their politicians: A desire to punish said student and the professors that are believed to have indoctrinated her.
I don't know if there is a solution to all of this, so I'm pessimistic.
This is one of the worst takes I have ever read, from beginning to end. If this is anything like a serious take, free inquiry and academia is not in trouble, it is dead.
This is not "balance", it is an endorsement of political corruption, as well as actively corrupting and ruining academe with a total surrender and capitulation to ignorance.
All knowledge is being treated as partisan, which is false, and it considered acceptable for the state to defund research and teaching that disagrees with the powers that be.
There is no such thing as conservative physics, socialist engineering, or liberal chemistry, and when it comes to the humanities, understanding multiple interpretations and perspectives on philosophy, politics, economics should provide students with the tools to make up their own minds.
This is a complete surrender to the idea that the purpose of education is indoctrination.
This is the opposite of everything that free inquiry is supposed to stand for, and everything that liberal democracy and a free society is supposed to stand for. Dissent is integral to democracy. Accountability is essential to democracy. Freedom is essential to inquiry.
This treats the situation as if academe brought the cuts on themselves by not being sufficiently "conservative," while side-stepping the issue that some of these "conservatives" are criminals, liars and extremist ideologues whose ideas are based in pseudoscience, irrational hate, conspiracy theories and political propaganda.
Is the problem with law schools that criminals and predators don't get to tell their side of the story?
There are actual standards of evidence and fact in the sciences and the humanities, and these are opposed by many on the radical right because these ideas challenge their political authority.
The assault on "diversity" programs is a purge of people based on race. The assault on science and the humanities is because history and science and critical thinking are considered to be a threat to the beliefs of people who claim to be Christians. So they want to suppress the teaching of evolution, and biology to stay in power.
The other is pure corruption for the purpose of maximizing profit. It's the state, on behalf of donors or special interest groups suppressing independent fact- and evidence-based criticisms of the harm of everything from corporations and governments mistreating, poisoning, harming defrauding, and killing people - for political and private gain.
All of which utterly destroys everything that is supposed to be of value in both government and academe.
The hard sciences are basically non-partisan and should stay that way.
As for the social sciences and humanities, there is a huge amount of work being done that is explicitly left-wing. The faculty skew in partisan affiliation is on the order of 20-to-1 in those areas. To say that this is the result of the intellectual superiority of the left as compared to the ignorance and malice of the right is itself an exercise of blind partisanship. Ignorance and malice can be found on both sides of the aisle.
There is a noteworthy conservative intellectual tradition going back millenia. Confucius and Aristotle! It has been denigrated by partisans, but deserves a fair hearing and strong representation.
I'm sure you've heard this all before. I basically agree 100% with the Heterodox Academy line about the need for partisan balance in scholarship.
My addition here is to point out exactly how far from the status quo academia will have to move to put itself in a position where it can expect consistent bipartisan support in funding.
If the things that are required are too bitter a pill to swallow, particularly in light of the vices of the people in power right now, I'm completely sympathetic to that. I'm aware that my suggestions are unthinkable for most academics; I say so in the piece.
So I expect our funding to be cut deeper, indefinitely.
There is a difference between scholarship and activism. We now even have entire university departments whose "mission statement" is political activism in a particular direction. What did people expect would happen when the "other side" got to hold the purse strings?
Coincidentally, I am co-authoring a major article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed, probably out within a week, that has specific proposals to help academia ideologically rebalance and begin to regain the trust of the public. Basically, it involved a system of checks and balances among trustees, admin, faculty and accreditors, especially around hiring. Look for it soon.
This entire essay is remarkably wrong-headed, aside from a few observations.
“I told you so"
Not to be used in adult writing.
"First, the GOP attacks on American democracy are real. I am not an alarmist"
You are an alarmist, and this is paranoid hype. What Americans have been imprisoned? ...
"And even if American democracy is as strong as ever in 2028, the Republicans could just win again."
Heavens! The electorate can't be allowed to elect Republicans?
"The Democrats are academics’ political patrons, and the Republicans our political foes."
False. Trump rid academia of DEI, which is toxic, restoring merit. That's mighty friendly.
"The work that biologists are doing is intricately enmeshed with the work that critical studies scholars are doing because the indirect funds that biologists request as part of their grants are keeping the lights on in the critical studies departments as well as in the biology lab."
Really absurd. Not only are departments subject to separate accounting, but biologists rarely share buildings with critical studies departments.
Lastly, Elon has said that DOGE will make mistakes, but they will be corrected. Both Trump and he know that academia is essential to a flourishing economy and society. I have no doubt that good research will continue to be funded.
This was something I realized quite quickly upon starting college in the early 2010s, though the process happened a bit quicker than I expected it to.
On campus, there was this (inherited) smug telelogy concerning American political history those vocally on the campus Left had zero scruples about confidently espousing. Faculty and especially administrative staff indulged these types at every opportunity (often nurturing these groups).
This rhetorical mode and the political activity associated with it was absurd in ways I couldn't believe. It was easy to see it would tend to alienate potential allies and nurture a more Machievellian counter movement. It's power was solely due to it's commitment to obstreperous behavior (something MAGA-inflected activism has appropriated more effectively), the acquiescence of the institution, and the moral blackmail that it's framing of history. The hollowness of it was also clear as this political style and it's pieties were reached for to win status games, launder bad academic work, and excused lazy thinking.
I'm with you on pretty much all of this, including the pessimism about whether it could happen. I suppose my prediction is that academia will shrink, and future generations of scientists will increasingly orient their careers around going into industry and/or getting private grants and doing research with more immediate commercial applications.
The American Academe as we understand it was constructed after WW2 from the consolidation and centralization of the Old Republic's decentralized, diversified, and pluralistic academe, I never knew about, it appears it was a wonderful space, we never should have done that.
Perhaps what comes next will be better. Certainly it will be smaller.
I'm not so sure about that, it depends where we go. I had been completely unaware of aspects of our past, and the socio-economic theories of the Old Republic, it appears that education, government, banking/finance, politics, and industry are always deeply interconnected and in symbiotic relationship with each other, if we decentralize and return to deliberate redundancy and policy variability then I suspect we'll see many flowers bloom.
Do you see a realistic way to achieve these goals that doesn't violate anyone's academic freedom?
The easiest ways is through the measures I mentioned in the article. Lines with AOS/AOC's in conservative thought. Interdepartmental institutions for development of conservative thought. Basically undertake an effort to hire and fund people whose academic freedom is likely to take them to the right, or at least not to the left. We know how to do this. We've been doing it with left-leaning scholarship for years. (Think of all the PhilJobs postings with AOS/AOC in race/gender/indigenous/post-colonial/etc, and replace them with postings with AOS/AOC in faith/family/patriotism/etc). Better to never have slanted postings like that in the first place, but the left-wingers have already been hired, and hiring up balance is better than purges.
Also, the administration enjoys no academic freedom in their student programming. More aggressive purges are appropriate there. Faculty senate needs to pass a resolution and then work with the Board of Trustees to depoliticize Student Life.
I wouldn't say that this is exactly "realistic" though. I think any measures that would be adequate to the task of soothing Republican animus are so far outside the self-conception of the typical academic that the only realistic path forward leads to the partisan degradation of higher education for the indefinite future. We have sewed, and the time of the reaping is here. The beatings will continue.
Is it consistent with faculty academic freedom for,. eg, the university dean or president to mandate the AOS of a new (or newly-vacated) tenure-track position in the philosophy department? Or are you hoping that when someone retires, the current faculty will decide on their own to advertise for the desired AOSs? I see how it might work if the administration creates new units from scratch, but that's not an easy think to pull off (but not impossible, UNC is doing something like that).
My main point is about what must be done, not about who should take the lead on doing it. But yes, this must be a faculty initiative. (This is why I'm pessimistic it will be done.)
Thanks for sharing this perspective. Your post raises an important question: Is the overwhelming leftward tilt in higher education a problem, and if so, what should be done about it?
There's no doubt that most universities lean left, particularly in the humanities and social sciences. If ideological diversity is an intellectual asset—and it is—then it's worth considering how to foster a more balanced academic environment.
But is the solution to actively engineer conservative representation through hiring preferences?
The argument made suggests that universities should deliberately hire more conservative scholars to counterbalance the left's dominance, mirroring how academic hiring has often prioritized race, gender, and progressive perspectives.
But this raises an uncomfortable question: Is this just affirmative action for conservatives?
For years, many on the right have opposed affirmative action, arguing that hiring should be based on merit, not identity or ideology. Yet, here, the proposed fix is... hiring quotas for conservatives? If ideological hiring is bad when it benefits progressives, why is it acceptable when it benefits conservatives?
More troublingly, this argument frames universities as responsible for their own defunding. It suggests that if academia faces budget cuts, it's because they haven't sufficiently accommodated conservative viewpoints—essentially blaming the victim rather than questioning those wielding the budget axe. This creates a dangerous dynamic where intellectual institutions must reshape themselves to appease whoever controls political power at the moment.
This raises serious concerns:
- Should universities adjust their faculty to match political power rather than pursue truth and scholarship?
- If a future administration demands more progressive hiring, would conservatives accept that logic in reverse?
The real question is whether academia should be shaped by academic rigor or political pressure. If universities become battlefields for ideological quotas, we risk turning education into a partisan institution where knowledge is validated by its political acceptability rather than its intellectual merit.
Political diversity matters—but the solution to bias isn't counter-bias, and the answer to funding threats shouldn't be institutional capitulation. The way forward isn't hiring quotas for conservatives, nor is it political engineering masquerading as reform. If the goal is to protect free inquiry, the answer must always be more freedom, not ideological hiring mandates.
First, I take issue with the idea that deliberate hiring of conservatives is inimical to truth and scholarship. I'm persuaded by the argument that excellent scholarship on politically relevant topics is impossible in the absence of ideological diversity. Hiring non-progressives should be seen as an absolutely central imperative in universities FROM THE STANDPOINT OF TRUTH AND SCHOLARSHIP. Heterodox Academy has been making this case for years now, and they're right. But despite this, their arguments haven't persuaded. So in addition to that correct argument, I'm drawing attention to the practical effects of our past bias, and arguing that the consequences are much more dire than people realize.
It sucks to change our practices partly in response to political pressure. But academia has always been shaped by political pressure. In a perfect world, that would not be the case. Alas, ours is not a perfect world. And importantly, this would not mark the beginning of political corruption of the academic mission. "If universities become battlefields for ideological quotas, we risk turning education into a partisan institution where knowledge is validated by its political acceptability rather than its intellectual merit." The time for that warning was a decade ago. Progressive activists have already turned substantial portions of education into a partisan institution where knowledge is validated by its political acceptability rather than its intellectual merit.
The best of all possible worlds is one where politically biased hiring never took place. The question is how we should respond to this past blunder.
So in light of the facts that conservative hiring will be good from the standpoint of truth and scholarship, and that failing to respond will also lead to deep ongoing attacks from those who control our funding, I think we should be actively trying to restore ideological balance in academia rather than hoping that it happens by coincidence in the face of ongoing anti-conservative discrimination.
As a university scientist I agree with much of what you are saying. For years I have been telling my colleagues about the stuff happening on the other side of campus. Most of them rolled their eyes and basically said "Whatever, they are irrelevant and I have real stuff to worry about". HOWEVER: we in the sciences are not innocent. Our academic societies, our journals, have been captured by the "woke" (for lack of better term) ideology. Many of our colleagues have been pushing in this direction within our own science departments, especially the younger ones. We are now paying the price.
I agree with you that academia does need more conservative voices, if only because I’d prefer to be fighting with smart conservatives instead of whatever the hell this is. But a huge difficulty is that at this point conservative thought isn’t just about rejecting or questioning the more controversial leftwing commitments, but rejects global warming, and seems to be moving into vaccine skepticism, too. It’s unclear if Republicans are even okay with orthodox economics anymore. Very hard to know how you could compromise with them without tenuring a bunch of obvious cranks.
I'm not saying that Bubba McMaga should have a tenure track job. But Spencer Case should.
Sure, but I don’t think Spencer getting a job would appease the right, tbh. And a lot of people of all political persuasions should have jobs but don’t.
Or to put this another way, you’re assuming that conservatives are cutting science funding to indirectly target leftwing studies. But given the appointment of Kennedy, refusal to get Covid vaccines, hatred of Fauci, etc, plus decades of rejecting evolution, isn’t the more likely answer that they hate science and scientists, too?
There are anti intellectual elements on the right, but also right wing intellectuals. The anti intellectual elements are ascendant now, but that particular trend is hardly inevitable. It is also at least partly downstream from the fact that academia has been strongly anti-conservative. We've negatively polarized the conservative movement into being anti-intellectual. That's really bad and we should stop!
There's lots of people that should have jobs but don't. If academics made a concerted effort to minimize the number of people in that group who are conservative, that would have salutary effects on academia.
We can also encourage a blossoming of conservative thought in this way. If it became widely known that high quality intellectual work on conservative thought was the "new hot thing" and a free ticket to a good job, there would be much more high quality conservative intellectual thought. That would mend many rifts.
I don’t see any evidence that there’s anything you could do to mend rifts with people like this.
I hope that's wrong. But if you're right, then it's already all over.
You use "they" like there's a single, undifferentiated bloc here. There are still plenty of swing voters, and people who swing from staying home to voting or vice versa. While I think you're right that there are some people who are so skeptical about higher ed as to be unreachable, it doesn't remotely follow that no right leaning skeptics of higher ed could be won over by the sorts of olive branches Matt is describing.
In general, we overestimate how many people have the cluster of views paradigmatic of the extremes of the political spectrum in the US. (the "hidden tribes" survey was nice on this. )
Anyone willing to vote for Trump after January 6 is not going to be won over by an olive branch.
Any right leaning skeptics of good faith voted against Trump, whatever complaints they may have with universities.
I suspect you're conflating normative and descriptive questions. I didn't say anything about "good faith". I'm saying plenty of Trump voters--heck, plenty of people who swung from Biden in 2020 to nobody in 2024, of which there were a lot--are persuadable. I mean that as a descriptive claim. It's compatible with the normative claim that they made a serious mistake in not interpreting Jan 6 the way you or I do. Unless you think anybody who doesn't understand Jan 6 the way you or I do must completely unpersuadable--must not be a swing voter in any sense--in which case I think it's just a thoroughly mistaken descriptive claim.
I agree that there should be more ideological diversity in academia and if faculty ensure that happens, it might lessen some right-wing anger, but I'm skeptical that will be enough to ward off the figurative beatings conservatives want to mete out.
I think what explains right-wing hostility is not only the actions of leftists, but that so many conservatives are glued to media that is used to stoke their outrage. Even if there were ideological parity among professors, colleges and universities could still be places in which progressive ideas are freely expressed. Such expressions of liberal/left opinions will be passed around conservative media in order to gin up outrage and get attention on video clips and podcasts.
A clip of a blue-haired 19-year-old with a septum ring saying some silly things on a college campus is still going to be become the fixture of 10-minute segments presented by Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh, who will ruthlessly mock her and use her as an example of why college is evil and dumb etc.
This in turn will inform what Republican voters want out of their politicians: A desire to punish said student and the professors that are believed to have indoctrinated her.
I don't know if there is a solution to all of this, so I'm pessimistic.
This is one of the worst takes I have ever read, from beginning to end. If this is anything like a serious take, free inquiry and academia is not in trouble, it is dead.
This is not "balance", it is an endorsement of political corruption, as well as actively corrupting and ruining academe with a total surrender and capitulation to ignorance.
All knowledge is being treated as partisan, which is false, and it considered acceptable for the state to defund research and teaching that disagrees with the powers that be.
There is no such thing as conservative physics, socialist engineering, or liberal chemistry, and when it comes to the humanities, understanding multiple interpretations and perspectives on philosophy, politics, economics should provide students with the tools to make up their own minds.
This is a complete surrender to the idea that the purpose of education is indoctrination.
This is the opposite of everything that free inquiry is supposed to stand for, and everything that liberal democracy and a free society is supposed to stand for. Dissent is integral to democracy. Accountability is essential to democracy. Freedom is essential to inquiry.
This treats the situation as if academe brought the cuts on themselves by not being sufficiently "conservative," while side-stepping the issue that some of these "conservatives" are criminals, liars and extremist ideologues whose ideas are based in pseudoscience, irrational hate, conspiracy theories and political propaganda.
Is the problem with law schools that criminals and predators don't get to tell their side of the story?
There are actual standards of evidence and fact in the sciences and the humanities, and these are opposed by many on the radical right because these ideas challenge their political authority.
The assault on "diversity" programs is a purge of people based on race. The assault on science and the humanities is because history and science and critical thinking are considered to be a threat to the beliefs of people who claim to be Christians. So they want to suppress the teaching of evolution, and biology to stay in power.
The other is pure corruption for the purpose of maximizing profit. It's the state, on behalf of donors or special interest groups suppressing independent fact- and evidence-based criticisms of the harm of everything from corporations and governments mistreating, poisoning, harming defrauding, and killing people - for political and private gain.
All of which utterly destroys everything that is supposed to be of value in both government and academe.
The hard sciences are basically non-partisan and should stay that way.
As for the social sciences and humanities, there is a huge amount of work being done that is explicitly left-wing. The faculty skew in partisan affiliation is on the order of 20-to-1 in those areas. To say that this is the result of the intellectual superiority of the left as compared to the ignorance and malice of the right is itself an exercise of blind partisanship. Ignorance and malice can be found on both sides of the aisle.
There is a noteworthy conservative intellectual tradition going back millenia. Confucius and Aristotle! It has been denigrated by partisans, but deserves a fair hearing and strong representation.
I'm sure you've heard this all before. I basically agree 100% with the Heterodox Academy line about the need for partisan balance in scholarship.
My addition here is to point out exactly how far from the status quo academia will have to move to put itself in a position where it can expect consistent bipartisan support in funding.
If the things that are required are too bitter a pill to swallow, particularly in light of the vices of the people in power right now, I'm completely sympathetic to that. I'm aware that my suggestions are unthinkable for most academics; I say so in the piece.
So I expect our funding to be cut deeper, indefinitely.
There is a difference between scholarship and activism. We now even have entire university departments whose "mission statement" is political activism in a particular direction. What did people expect would happen when the "other side" got to hold the purse strings?
The Chronicle article I mentioned in my previous comment is now out, you can read it here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PargKeitLWSGGohAh9o_Bm7x13gxR0f4/view?usp=sharing
Paywalled version is here: https://www.chronicle.com/article/higher-ed-needs-checks-and-balances
Coincidentally, I am co-authoring a major article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed, probably out within a week, that has specific proposals to help academia ideologically rebalance and begin to regain the trust of the public. Basically, it involved a system of checks and balances among trustees, admin, faculty and accreditors, especially around hiring. Look for it soon.
This entire essay is remarkably wrong-headed, aside from a few observations.
“I told you so"
Not to be used in adult writing.
"First, the GOP attacks on American democracy are real. I am not an alarmist"
You are an alarmist, and this is paranoid hype. What Americans have been imprisoned? ...
"And even if American democracy is as strong as ever in 2028, the Republicans could just win again."
Heavens! The electorate can't be allowed to elect Republicans?
"The Democrats are academics’ political patrons, and the Republicans our political foes."
False. Trump rid academia of DEI, which is toxic, restoring merit. That's mighty friendly.
"The work that biologists are doing is intricately enmeshed with the work that critical studies scholars are doing because the indirect funds that biologists request as part of their grants are keeping the lights on in the critical studies departments as well as in the biology lab."
Really absurd. Not only are departments subject to separate accounting, but biologists rarely share buildings with critical studies departments.
Lastly, Elon has said that DOGE will make mistakes, but they will be corrected. Both Trump and he know that academia is essential to a flourishing economy and society. I have no doubt that good research will continue to be funded.
This was something I realized quite quickly upon starting college in the early 2010s, though the process happened a bit quicker than I expected it to.
On campus, there was this (inherited) smug telelogy concerning American political history those vocally on the campus Left had zero scruples about confidently espousing. Faculty and especially administrative staff indulged these types at every opportunity (often nurturing these groups).
This rhetorical mode and the political activity associated with it was absurd in ways I couldn't believe. It was easy to see it would tend to alienate potential allies and nurture a more Machievellian counter movement. It's power was solely due to it's commitment to obstreperous behavior (something MAGA-inflected activism has appropriated more effectively), the acquiescence of the institution, and the moral blackmail that it's framing of history. The hollowness of it was also clear as this political style and it's pieties were reached for to win status games, launder bad academic work, and excused lazy thinking.