Crimson Tide: Harvard Virtually Eliminated Conservative Professors … But Apparently That is Not a Problem

In my recent law review article at Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, I discuss the recent student survey showing that over 82 percent of Harvard faculty self-identify as liberal or very liberal. What is striking is that, even as Harvard is ranked as one of the most hostile academic environments for free speech, students are rallying in support of the effective purging of conservatives from the faculty.


The survey conducted by The Harvard Crimson revealed that 82.46% of faculty surveyed identify as “liberal” or “very liberal.”  Only 16.08% self-identified as “moderate” and a mere 1.46% identified as “conservative.” Not a single faculty member identified as “very conservative,” but the number of faculty identified as “very liberal” increased by another 8% in just one year.

At the same time, conservatives have been virtually eliminated from the student body with only seven percent of incoming students identifying as conservative. With virtually no faculty and few students identifying as conservatives, it is not surprising that only 35 percent of that dwindling number of students feel comfortable in voicing their views or values in class.

Recently, one of the last remaining conservatives on the faculty spoke out.  He is 90-year-old political scientist Harvey Mansfield and he decried the loss of intellectual diversity and the increasing association of Harvard University with far left positions:


“The Harvard Commencement is something like the Democratic National Convention. And that’s a hell of a way to run a university, to maintain its impartiality and its devotion to veritas, to truth, just to go out of your way to provoke people who happen to have different politics, instead of inviting them to come and even just give a talk. How can that be in Harvard’s interest?

As to hiring, I don’t think a conservative has been hired in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in the last decade. And it’s probably been going on longer than that. Maybe there’s one or two, but if so, they stay hidden. Because if you’re conservative and want to get on with your colleagues, you have to indulge in self-censorship, and I think a number of students do that as well. But I can’t get my colleagues to think of this as a problem.”

One would think that these studies and objections would deeply concern everyone at Harvard about the loss of diversity of viewpoints and the rising of an orthodoxy that is either by design or de facto in light of these statistics.

Think again.  The editors of the Crimson insisted this week that there is no reason for concern that conservatives have virtually been removed from the entire faculty.

The editors of the Harvard Crimson wrote:

Where our board disagrees with Mansfield — and rather sharply, we may add — is in his notion that a more even distribution of faculty along a conservative-liberal binary would increase productive disagreement in any meaningful way. We find little reason to believe that. In fact, boiling down ideological and intellectual diversity to such limited labels strikes us as downright reductive.

So reducing the number of conservatives on the faculty to a statistical nullity is “downright reductive.” After all, there remains a vigorous debate at Harvard that runs from the left to the far left.

A recent large-scale survey put Harvard at 170th in terms of free speech, close to the bottom of the 203 schools.

This is the face of orthodoxy, which does not lend itself to self-evaluation or self-criticism. The purging of the faculties of conservatives or libertarians is simply not a problem when this survey is based on the self-identification of faculty.  These universities are allowing liberal faculty to replicate their own values and to exclude opposing views.  They have created an echo chamber within one of the greatest universities of the world, destroying the essential intellectual diversity needed to sustain higher education.

The fact is that the reduction of viewpoint diversity is not just a reflection of intolerance and intellectual rigidity.  It also offers greater opportunities for faculty in access to conferences, publications, and speaking events. Other faculty, including some who have contacted this blog with accounts or controversies, are fearful of being publicly targeted by their colleagues or students. In three decades of teaching, I have never seen this level of intolerance and the general lack of support for free speech on many campuses.

Of course, even in unanimity, there can be subtle nuance and dissent.

134 thoughts on “Crimson Tide: Harvard Virtually Eliminated Conservative Professors … But Apparently That is Not a Problem”

  1. Why would any self-respecting conservative ever even consider teaching at that cesspool of leftism? Let them roll around in their own filth, who cares?

    1. No graduating high school student wants go to Haaavard, unless they are pretentious trust fund babies. Seriously. The school sux.

  2. What ‘Conservatives’ Would Teach At Harvard?

    Is Professor Turley thinking of Republican moderates from the 1980’s? Those conservatives might have been reasonable intellectuals.

    Or is Turley thinking of contemporary Trumpists?

    Would anyone with the tuition to attend an Ivy League college want a professor who denies Climate Change? Or who denies the need for vaccines?

    How many female students would respect a Harvard academic who believes in forced birth or absolute gun rights?

    How many students at ‘any’ good school would respect a professor sympathetic to Q’Anon??

    The point is that today’s ‘conservatives’ are mostly Trumpers. Which means their views are anti-intellectual. No Ivy League student wants an anti-intellectual professor! That’s like going to personal trainer who’s an obese slob.

    1. What ‘Conservatives’ Would Teach At Harvard?

      All of them. The rest of your tripe is what the Left considers “teaching,” but is actually tuition-paid indoctrination masquerading as teaching.

    2. Do you really want answers to your foolish rhetorical questions? I mean we are surrounded by evidence that contradicts you. And you think a young woman that can’t prevent getting knocked up by a Haavard boy has any credential worthy of society?

  3. Those people at Harvard know when their ideas can’t win the day you need to shut down all opposing views otherwise people will realize your supposed intellect is just the emperor with no clothes.

  4. Ok, are classical liberals ready to speak up yet? Anyone? Anyone? We no longer have an American Democratic party, and that is just fine with the new blood.

    1. Olly, by all accounts Trump has no case regarding the seized documents. And Turley told us that yesterday.

      So why is the FBI a ‘Gestapo’..??

      It’s weird how Trumpers keep mimicking the language of 1960’s leftists.

  5. In the spring of 2017 I participated in Harvard’s 9 week Advanced Management program. The economics professor admitted there are no Hayek conomics thinkers on staff, there was a giant projection screen in an auditorium that showed President Trump in a clown suit and red nose, the tech professor “assured” us that Zuckerberg “has promised to do a better job in 2020”, Fox news was blocked from our in-room televisions and computers. Simply was a Cesspool filled with pedigreed mental midgets.

  6. Liberalism is a pervasive mental disorder that rots away the mental faculties of the hapless victim turning them into a drooling dumbed down zombie that can be led around by its nose by Cult leaders on the left

  7. Harvard has fought expensive legal battles for the right to continue to discriminate against Asians in their undergraduate admissions and hiring process. Harvard is no arbiter of of ethics.

    1. Karen S., it appears that the Students for Fair Admissions case will be argued on Halloween. Let’s go!

  8. Are there any Conservatives left? Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, George Will would be kicked out today’s conservative movement and kicked out of the Republican Party.

    Bush Republicans supported fiscally-liberal spending policies. Trump’s extreme wing are constitutionally-subversive and many are racist NOT conservative in any way.

    1. Ashcroft throws in the race card to describe Republicans. You missed your chance Ashcroft. You could have thrown in deplorables and fascist for good measure. You could at least show some grasp of the difference in policy of the two parties and make a worthwhile argument in favor of your side of the political spectrum. Instead of an educated argument we get the race card. What can we expect? True to form when reason is missing we get the name calling in it’s place.

    2. Ashcroft:

      What evidence do you have that the most of the millions of people who voted Republican, for Trump, or would vote Republican in future, including for Trump, are racist and not conservative?

      Your bigoted opinion, and anyone else’s bigoted opinion, is not a source.

    3. Funny how we just saw the biggest act of racism since Charlottesville in Martha’s Vineyard. And this time, rather than it being young idiot adults, it was the well-seasoned, professional Democrats that employed 125 National Guard to remove 50 brown people. Had anyone on the right done this, EVERYONE on the left would have lost their damn minds. Democrats always have been the biggest racists in this country, they just try to hide it with fake virtue.

    4. Ashcroft, when today’s Republicans don’t support inflation causing liberal policies you seem to think that the are no longer the party of Ronald Reagan. You should remember that Ronald Reagan said you should be very afraid when the government says we are hear to help. Republicans today are still against big government and high taxes. Your comparison of Republicans of old and Republicans of today clearly displays your lack of understanding of the subject matter.

    5. George Will is still around? I thought he switched sides when Trump was elected. As for Reagan, he was never a conservative. He was a New Deal Democrat who switched parties.

        1. Will has been wrong about Trump.

          He is still brilliant. There are unfortunately a number of very smart conservative or libertarian never Trumpers.

          If Republicans are going to insist on destroying everyone on the right who disagrees on one issue, they will be making the same stupid mistake democrats do.

          I am glad that Republicans are abandoning neo-cons, and that many neo-cons are abandoning the GOP.
          To them I say good riddance. If Democrats want all the war mongers they can have them.
          The trade for blue colar workers is more than advantageous to republicans.

          But the GOP should not $hit on every republican that is not a MAGA Trump fan.

    6. Incorrect. The usurpation of power by the Federal Government goes far beyond what the original framers of the Constitution feared. We aim to dismantle it, and return power to the states and the people, which makes us far better constitutionalists than those in the uni-party. In concert, we will dismantle the unholy alliance between big finance, big tech, and the Beltway; overhaul the central bank, put the country’s finances back in order, and re-stabilize the currency so as to not deplete the wealth of the American family through inflation.

    7. .05% of Obama’s latest book deal could have provided $6,500 per person to give time to get those brown people on their feet. Obama talks big, but he doesn’t care. Those were brown people, not black, and if they were black, they wouldn’t have status, so for Obama, they would have been worth nothing. Obama’s house on the island, one of his vacation resorts, said worth $12 million. His other homes are worth more.

      The lack of concern and the ability to tell middle-class families to suck it in demonstrate a lack of humanity coming from the top of the Democrat Party. That lack of humanity, along with racism, travels down to ‘the little’ people like Ashcroft’s Zersetzung, who hides his racism by accusing others. That is pretty sick.

  9. Once Democrats had controlling interests in academia, they discriminated against conservatives in hiring practices, and even managed to politicize the hard sciences. Democrats also control key government positions that give grants, and thus will deny grants based on content discrimination. Universities also pressure professors against publishing certain material based on content. It’s been very difficult, for example, to get papers through that criticize automatic affirmation of gender dysphoria and transgenderism, or that investigate long term health consequences of taking gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonists like Lupron.

    By aligning those who publish with far Left ideology, academia then proclaims that the science is settled and will not entertain opposing views. That’s how something as simple as male and female because indefinable.

  10. I guess it depends on what you mean by being conservative or very conservative. Lately, that means being in the Trump cult and not believing in objective facts or science and believing Trump is telling the truth about all things while everyone who has ever been around him is a liar.

    If it means believing in lower taxes and less government regulation, that would be one thing; but being a conservative these days means disregarding objective reality in favor of whatever your cult leader is saying at the moment. People who do not believe in facts or science do not belong at Harvard. But they can certainly get a gig on Fox which prefers people who do not believe in facts or science.

    1. Popl, reality is rampant crime in cities run by Democrats. Reality is a border that is open to millions who enter our nation illegally. Reality is mutilating children under the age of consent. Reality is confusing children about which sex they are at three years old. These are realities that you somehow can not understand. You only have the assumed realities that have like weeds crept into your gray matter. Please tell us more about your so called scientifically proved realities so that we may come to an even more realistic understanding of the person that you are.

    2. What a silly remark, so would you say that all uneducated minorities in the DNC are the same or worse or more Noble?

    3. Why are Liberal facts proven to be wrong on so many occasions if they are, indeed, facts? When this happens, you can count on the left to re-define the fact, give it a new meaning, so they can continue to claim it is a fact. It is the most ridiculous, narrow minded thinking imaginable, but Conservatives are the problem and they, somehow, are in a cult.

      If you want to see a true cult, look no further than Harvard and your talking point parroting Liberals infesting our media companies.

    4. Popl:

      Let’s discuss the phenomenon of not believing science and who disregards objective reality.

      Democrats have ignored the body of evidence, and observable sexual dimorphism, and claim there is no difference between male or female.

      Democrats claim that male or female is a changeable state of mind.

      Democrats have refused to acknowledge the data that the defund the police movement was associated with an increase in violent crime.

      Democrats continue to mandate fabric masks in school, on occasion, though the science has proven it is just a germ-ridden facial covering.

      Democrats continue to harass those who are not vaccinated for Covid, going so far as to prevent tennis pro Novak Djokovic from playing in the US open, because he is not vaccinated. This is in spite of Democrats allowing over 2 million illegal border crossings, most of whom were allowed to remain in the country, and many of whom are unvaccinated or have active Covid infections. This is also despite the fact that the Covid vaccine is now so out of date that it offers no protection at all against the current strains of Covid. Both vaccine-acquired and naturally-acquired immunity from infection recovery created pressure on the virus to select for variants that contained a different spike protein. The vaccine no longer prevents infection or spread of the disease. It was helpful to those who voluntarily received it when the original Covid was endemic. Democrats are pushing to include it as a mandatory vaccine for school, and travelers are prohibited from coming to the US without it. This is anti-science.

      CA has mandated all new passenger vehicles sold be electric by 2035, and all semis by 2040, despite the fact that there are currently no electric semis produced anywhere. Tesla is currently working on developing one, however, the cost and reliability are unknown. So far, its range is 500 miles, while the range of a diesel semi is 2100 miles. The grid is also currently unable to meet demand. We regularly get Flex Alerts, in which we are told to keep our A/C at or above 78, reduce electricity use, and refrain from powering electric vehicles. During high fire hazard danger, when it’s hot and windy, they shut the power off. Imagine if there’s a fire approaching but you cannot escape because your mandated electric vehicle is dead and the power to your house was shut off 4 days ago. Yet, we’re supposed to have millions of electric vehicles on the road within 13 years. Under Newsom, CA is creating mandates that are literally impossible to comply with. It is the unelected CARB doing this. Voters have had no say. Our electricity costs have already skyrocketed as CA has required more expensive wind and solar to keep replacing affordable fossil fuels.

      CARB already prohibited the registration of medium duty trucks and larger that are older than 2010. An unelected board just rendered valuable assets worthless. As a workaround, you could make modifications that turned out to blow up the engines. This is one of the reasons why the cost of everything that is shipped in CA, including groceries, has increased. Now it’s going to get worse. That’s anti-science.

        1. Her ignorance speaks for itself. Again, is she Alan’s sister or is the gene pool in the world of rethuglicans that damaged?

    5. Popl: And do those “objective facts” that you clearly think Democrats have monopoly on, include believing that boys can become girls and vice versa? Or that mutilating kids is “gender affirming”? Or that a recession isn’t really a recession? Or that more government spending can stem inflation? Or that looting is just “redistribution”? Or that “open borders” that bring in massive amounts of drugs, sex trafficking and crime is just “humanitarian”? Or that ruling by executive order is democratic? Or that requiring IDs for voting (as we do for opening bank accounts, getting a library card, and just about everything else in this country) is “systemic racism”? I could go on , but the point is: Democrats confuse ideology with facts. You do not have a single argument that can stand up to hard debate and actual facts.

  11. Every country the communist have taken over, they use the academics. But what some forget is that soon after the fall of democracies the students and professors start mysteriously committing suicide.

  12. Jonathan: At the risk of repetition, and only because you keep raising the issue, why is it that “conservative” and “very conservative” ideas have so little appeal at Harvard and other universities? That’s the 64 dollar Q you never address. But now you bizarrely claim “conservatives have been virtually eliminated from the student body…”. This implies that Harvard deliberately applies a political litmus test when admitting new students. Harvard’s admissions officers would be surprised, and probably outraged, by such a wild assertion. Students are selected based solely on their academic record–not their political views. I suspect the reason “conservative ” students are in such short supply is because they don’t qualify at the country’s premier university or they decide to apply elsewhere. Students who support Donald Trump know where they are wanted–and it’s not at Harvard where I suspect Trump is toxic for very good reasons. So let’s discuss some more important news this week.

    Ken Burns has a new PBS documentary “The US and the Holocaust” that explores how the Nazis drew inspiration from US immigration policies. Hitler’s policies were based on what he saw going on here. Hitler was in prison in 1924 (for a failed coup) when he learned the US Congress had just passed the Immigration Act of 1924. While the Act did not specifically mention the Jews it was fueled by anti-semitic sentiment and fears that Jews would outnumber white Anglo-Saxon Americans. In the early part of the 20th century people like Henry Ford, Helen Keller and Alexander Graham Bell were big advocates of eugenics. Many states passed sterilization laws. Hitler saw this as a blueprint for what he wanted to do in Germany. In “Mein Kampf” Hitler saw the US as a “Nordic-Germanic state and had acted to preserve its purity by excluding certain races”.

    So what we see today in the hysteria over immigration is an echo of an earlier period. This blog is filled with racist anti-immigrant hysteria. Karen S, is probably the greatest purveyor of such nonsense, says: “These are people gaming the system, and we should stop allowing violent criminal cartels to operate as our immigration system”. But there are others. “Ryder” says “These are illegals invited by a traitor [Biden] cheated into the WH, by faked ballots”. There are other such nonsensical comments but I don’t want to be repetitive. The point here is the “rage”, you complain endlessly about by the Dems and “the left”, has found a home right here on this blog for white nationalists. You should read some of the comments on your blog from time to time. Have you thought about how some of your columns actually encourage this “rage”?

    1. Dennis:

      Pointing out the problems with illegal immigration is not racist, as Martha’s Vineyard, DC, and Chicago mayors have all discovered.

      Pointing out that when 95% of illegal immigrants now claim asylum for which they do not qualify, it’s gaming the system, is not racist, either.

      When people are willfully blind, and attack the character of those who voice concerns about illegal immigration, then the disastrous practice continues, to the tune of millions of people paying thousands of dollars, each, to criminal cartels. Many of those people are sexually assaulted by the cartels or forced to mule drugs.

      It appears that “rage” means someone has undermined your political beliefs, you cannot come up with a reasoned argument, so you go into personal attacks.

      Here is supporting evidence that illegal aliens have been directed to game the asylum system.

      “Homeland Security has reached a “crisis” in the asylum system with illegal immigrants gaming the system, the department said Wednesday, announcing new changes to try to speed things up so undeserving applicants can be deported.
      The backlog reached 311,000 cases as of Jan. 21, “making the system increasingly vulnerable to fraud and abuse,” said U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency within Homeland Security that handles legal immigration.”

      The backlog is currently over 900 days. A majority don’t show up for court dates, including those who are only present for the initial hearing. It sure would be a shame for terrorists to exploit that weakness.

      1. Karen: As usual you don’t know what you are talking about. You say “95% of the illegal immigrants now claim asylum for which they do not qualify,…”. Excuse me, but immigration judges decide who qualifies, not you! And the 50 migrants in Martha’s Vineyard are not “illegal”. They are lawfully in the country pursuing their asylum claims. Perhaps, you need a refresher course in US asylum law–about which you are woefully ignorant.

        The UN 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol define “refugee” as someone who is seeking protection from persecution in their home country “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion”. The US is a signatory to the 1967 Protocol and this definition is incorporated in US immigration law and the Refugee Act of 1980. Not all individuals qualify for “refugee” status. That’s the job of immigration judges to determine–notwithstanding your spurious claim! Under US immigration law a person granted “asylum” status cannot be deported, is authorized to work here and may apply for a SS card. That person is entitled to apply for programs such as Medicaid, etc. After one year the person can apply for a green card and can apply for US citizenship after 4 years. You many not like it but that’s the law.

        So to label Brown and Black refugees as “illegal” and “terrorists” who are trying to “game the asylum system” reflects the racist view that allowing people into the country from Haiti and Latin America will dilute our white Anglo-Saxon culture. I say if the shoe fits wear it!

    2. It should be noted that “economic refugee” is not a valid asylum category. If it did, then 689 million people, or more than twice the population of the United States, would qualify for asylum based on poverty alone.

      “Under US law, most migrants coming here without permission must be expelled. The only exceptions are migrants fleeing torture or racial, religious, ethnic, political or social-group persecution. “Economic refugee” is a contradiction, and “seeking a better life” means nothing if a migrant lacks permission to enter.

      Otherwise, millions would seek entry and local governments would go bankrupt, medical and public-school systems would be strained, and America’s poor would remain in poverty for generations.

      To avoid such harms, Congress requires the Department of Homeland Security to prevent all illegal entries and has given it authority to quickly remove migrants who enter illegally or come without proper documents…

      DHS statistics reveal that the Biden administration has rarely used this “expedited removal” authority. Between July 2021 and July 2022, the department processed 1.079 million migrants stopped at the southwest border for removal. Of that 1.079 million, it cleared just 41,206 to apply for asylum or other humanitarian protection in the US.

      During that same period, however, DHS released approximately 853,000 migrants stopped at the southwest border into the United States. Although those migrants are commonly called “asylum-seekers,” these statistics show fewer than 5% are.

      That’s not to say that others won’t seek asylum eventually. Most who appear in immigration court will file asylum applications, regardless of whether they fear persecution or torture, because that will allow them to seek work permits and remain here indefinitely.”

      And although President Donald Trump tried to comply with a statutory mandate to detain all who entered illegally until they are granted asylum or removed, President Biden largely just ignores that rule.

      The administration complains it can’t detain illegal migrants because it lacks space and must instead release most into the US pending removal proceedings. Consequently, seven times as many of those illegal migrants were released between July 2021 and July 2022 than were removed or returned.

      While DHS does need more detention resources, Biden intends to make that problem worse.

      He wants Congress to cut adult detention beds from 34,000 daily to 25,000 in FY 2023. In July, Border Patrol apprehended 5,856 illegal entrants per day at the southwest border. If Congress makes those cuts, Immigration and Customs Enforcement could only detain any given migrant for about four days. Even more migrants will be released, encouraging more to enter illegally.

    3. One should note the gradual increase in illegal aliens claiming asylum once they reach the border. They are coached to use key phrases or words like “credible fear”. By claiming asylum, they are allowed to stay here in the US and work. The back log in the immigration courts is running over 900 days, and a majority skip all or some of their court dates.

      Immigrants have been coached for years on how to claim asylum, even though most are not qualified to do so.

  13. “Crimson Tide: Harvard Faculty has Virtually Eliminated Conservative Professors … But Apparently That is Not a Problem”

    – Professor Turley

    They are the new normal, new American, communist education, re-education, indoctrination and propagandization camps.

    They are the base camps of the direct and mortal Marxist enemies of the U.S. Constitution and America.

    They have been evolving and developing as the spawn of Karl Marx and his “earnest of the epoch,” leading America progressively toward “the RECONSTRUCTION of a social world,” Abraham Lincoln.

    They are “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

    As the Supreme Court acted retroactively, by 50 years, to overturn Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court must act retroactively, by 150 years, to overturn every unconstitutional act and improperly “ratified” amendment of the eminently unconstitutional despot and tyrant, Abraham Lincoln, and his communist successors.

    Lincoln espoused Karl Marx’s pejoratives “capitalist” and “fleece the people” in 1837:

    “These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people.”

    – Abraham Lincoln, from his first speech as an Illinois state legislator, 1837

    “Everyone now is more or less a Socialist.”

    – Charles Dana, managing editor of the New York Tribune, and Lincoln’s assistant secretary of war, 1848

    “The goal of Socialism is Communism.”

    – Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

    “The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.”

    – Karl Marx and the First International Workingmen’s Association to Lincoln, 1864

    Letter of congratulation and commendation from Karl Marx to Abraham Lincoln:

  14. There’s a black ball conspiracy in place and it’s leftists having systematically eliminated all textual Constitutional teaching and replaced it with stealth, or overt, Marxism.
    And it’s go for power up started in the sixties.
    They are unafraid now.

  15. Hey folks lighten up. The bigots at Harvard are just going along to get along. You can watch them stopping on occasion to nibble on some grass. Their bleats are such sweet music to the good shepherd in the Whitehouse. Friends of the good shepherd often come around and give them some hay to eat. You can hear the joyful bleating of the students floating down the lazy river.

Leave a Reply