In my book, “The Indispensable Right,” I write about the intolerance for viewpoint diversity in higher education and the atmosphere of orthodoxy created by overwhelmingly liberal faculties. We have also discussed consistent studies showing that students no longer feel free to express their viewpoints in class or on campuses. A new study offers additional data on this problem, showing that almost 90% of students misrepresent their views in class and on assignments to satisfy faculty by adopting more liberal views. The authors explain that “these students were not cynical, but adaptive.” Faced with the intolerance and rigidity of liberal faculty, they pretend to be liberal to avoid being penalized for their real views or values. In other words, they “quickly learn to rehearse what is safe.”
In a recent op-ed, Northwestern University researchers Forest Romm and Kevin Waldman detail their findings:
Between 2023 and 2025, we conducted 1,452 confidential interviews with undergraduates at Northwestern University and the University of Michigan. …
We asked: Have you ever pretended to hold more progressive views than you truly endorse to succeed socially or academically? An astounding 88 percent said yes.
These students were not cynical, but adaptive. In a campus environment where grades, leadership, and peer belonging often hinge on fluency in performative morality, young adults quickly learn to rehearse what is safe.
The result is not conviction but compliance. And beneath that compliance, something vital is lost.
This has been a long-standing problem in higher education. The current generation of faculty and administrators has destroyed the sense of free thought and expression on our campuses. Faced with consistent polling showing that students feel compelled to mimic liberal ideology and viewpoints, faculty shrug or even attack students for being weak. In a debate that I had at Harvard Law School, a Harvard professor called such students “conservative snowflakes.”
However, they are not conservative. Take Harvard. A recent survey of the graduating class by the Classroom Social Compact Committee found that, despite an overwhelmingly liberal faculty and student body, even liberal Harvard students found a chilling environment for free expression at the school. And it is getting worse. The results show a 13 percent decrease from the Class of 2023.
Last year, Harvard found itself in a familiar spot on the annual ranking of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE): dead last among 251 universities and colleges.
What is most striking is the fact that Harvard has created this hostile environment while maintaining an overwhelmingly liberal student body and faculty. Only 9 percent of the class identified as conservative or very conservative.
Yet, even liberals feel stifled at Harvard. Only 41 percent of liberal students reported being comfortable discussing controversial topics, and only 25 percent of moderates and 17 percent of conservatives felt comfortable in doing so.
This sense of orthodoxy is conveyed by the Harvard faculty, which itself does not tolerate opposing voices except for a handful of conservative academics. The Harvard Crimson has documented how the school’s departments have virtually eliminated Republicans. In one study of multiple departments last year, they found that more than 75 percent of the faculty self-identified as “liberal” or “very liberal.”
Only 5 percent identified as “conservative,” and only 0.4% as “very conservative.”
The virtual purging of conservative faculty members across the country sends a message to students that such ideas are not favored or acceptable. The result is that the vast majority of students — liberal and conservative — self-censor in an environment of intolerance.
In the latest study, the researcher found:
Seventy-eight percent of students told us they self-censor on their beliefs surrounding gender identity; 72 percent on politics; 68 percent on family values. More than 80 percent said they had submitted classwork that misrepresented their views in order to align with professors. For many, this has become second nature — an instinct for academic and professional self-preservation.
The authors’ research suggests that on some issues, such as the nature of gender and gender identity, students’ actual beliefs are quite different from what appears to be the prevailing orthodoxy on campus.
They write further:
Authenticity, once considered a psychological good, has become a social liability. And this fragmentation doesn’t end at the classroom door. Seventy-three percent of students reported mistrust in conversations about these values with close friends. Nearly half said they routinely conceal beliefs in intimate relationships for fear of ideological fallout. This is not simply peer pressure — it is identity regulation at scale, and it is being institutionalized.
Universities often justify these dynamics in the name of inclusion. But inclusion that demands dishonesty is not ensuring psychological safety — it is sanctioning self-abandonment. In attempting to engineer moral unity, higher education has mistaken consensus for growth and compliance for care.
Again, if students saw a meaningful number of conservative, libertarian, or contrarian faculty members, they might believe that opposing views are tolerated. Instead, they receive a steady drumbeat of often strident ideological commentary. I constantly hear reports of students having to sit through diatribes from faculty members against conservative politicians, justices, and values. Years ago, a graduating student told me that my Supreme Court class in her final term was the first time in college or law school that she felt comfortable expressing her conservative views, including pro-life views. It was a profoundly sad statement about the state of higher education.
This report will now be added to a tall stack of other reports showing a culture of intolerance and intimidation in higher education, particularly for more conservative students. It also reflects why the last election shocked so many in the media and establishment, as young people voted Republican. This generation of faculty and administrators has created a type of underground culture as students mouth liberal orthodoxy in class to avoid the retaliation or disfavor of liberal professors.
After many years of such studies, there is no evidence that faculty members are prepared to change in adding more diversity to their ranks. While this environment is the antithesis of higher education, it is advantageous for those who espouse accepted viewpoints and values. The students are left to “adapt” or face the consequences.
I haven’t seen any conservative or Republican make their case here. If they are scared or self-censoring because they don’t think their ideas or views are going to get the respect they think they deserve then they should sign up for courage classes at the local community college.
“ I haven’t seen any conservative or Republican make their case here.”
It’s hard to see what you’re not looking for.
I was doing this in the late 60s. All my PoliSci and History profs (except one notable exception) were Lefties. And this was at the University of Kansas! I told them what they wanted to hear in my essay tests and graduated with honors (humble brag) and went on about my conservative way. I’ve never voted for a Democrat for president and only once for a House rep (because he got me into the Navy OCS program when it wasn’t a lock if you were white). Most colleges seemed to be seething cauldrons of leftism as early as the early 60s. It seems little has changed – except that it’s become worse.
This piece by Turley is an absurd attempt to rile up the MAGA mob.
He is making sweeping generalizations about liberal basis permeating the entire higher education system.
The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of students are seeking degrees in science, medicine, engineering, business, computer science, to name but a few. They are aiming for highly skilled and technical professions
There is no liberal or conservative bias in the teaching of these classes. There is no room for opinions or alternative points of view. They are there to learn facts and concepts and technical details required for professional careers.
There is no political bias in computational fluid dynamics courses.
There is no political bias in aerodynamics courses.
There is no political bias in anatomy courses.
There is no political bias in pharmacology courses.
There is no political bias in computer science courses.
There is no political bias in biochemistry courses.
Turley, and the MAGA mob, look at the small minority of students in the humanities, where opinions and alternative views are encouraged, and where there is no wrong answer, and where there may be a liberal bias, and then try to extrapolate that to the entire spectrum of higher education.
This is insanity.
Apparently you are unaware that all students must take USP course (University Studies Program) to “broaden” their education in order to graduate. Not all USP listed courses are taught by raging progressives, of course, but there is more or less adherence to progressive views.
Then there is the fabulism that now occurs even in the sciences and engineering.
For example, it’s easy to find many classes in engineering centered on renewable power. These classes offer a narrow view of renewable power that rarely if ever looks at adequacy of supply, reliability, or the economics of relying on wind/solar and batteries. Heaven forbid you do, as I did, speak of the environmental damage that we’ll see with biofuels and wind especially, or such damage from the enormous demands for mineral resources, millions of miles of transmission lines, and so forth.
When I mentioned to an engineering colleague that wind turbines are poised to wipe out migratory birds in places, he responded by telling me a biologist on campus assured him that all these birds would soon die anyway from climate change if we didn’t alter our ways.
Yes, this is insanity.
OMG!
The facts and truth scared the heck out of this guy!
It’s called the “Path of Least Resistance,” Einstein!
I totally disagree, President Trump is not reacting to symptoms of Liberal Socialist Democracy, he is attacking the cause. He’s going after liberal law schools, PBN, propaganda outlets, liberal education systems and the deep state wokesters. He’s annihilating the root cause as the Democratic Party collapses and is exposed for who and what they really are. You may ask who is that? The answer is they are exactly who and what they accuse everyone else of being.
to Anonymous at 2:45 pm.
First of all, it is not clear that the “vast majourity” of college students are engaged in technical studies. It seems to be true that the most popular category of study continues to be “the arts and sciences.” not the professions. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=37
Second, it is not true that the “technical” professions are immune from left-wing propaganda. In the last few years, we have seen how the legal profession abandoned its tradional ethics in the crusade to detroy Donald Trump through lawfare. We have also seen how the medical profession twisted itself into knots to enable the “transitioning” of guileless teenagers into some kind of biological mish-mash.
edwardmahl
First of all you need to understand the concept of ignoratio elenchi.
If you include the sciences with the arts then you are skewing the data.
I am talking about the Humanities, which does not include the sciences, or the professions.
When you look at the Humanities, excluding the hard sciences and professions, then only 8.8% of students are Humanities majors.
https://www.amacad.org/humanities-indicators/higher-education/bachelors-degrees-humanities#:~:text=By%202022%2C%20the%20humanities%20accounted,completions%20became%20possible%20in%201987.
In other words 91% of students are engaged in STEM studies, business studies and so on, with a specific goal of a specific professional career.
You claim that the “legal profession” has “abandoned its traditional ethics in the crusade to destroy Donald Trump through lawfare”.
Only a very few lawyers have been engaged in legal matters with Trump, and there’s absolutely no shortage of lawyers DEFENDING Trump.
You are condemning an entire profession based on your biased opinion and a very few lawyers engaged against Trump.
You claim the “medical profession” twisted itself into knots to enable the “transitioning” of guileless teenagers into some kind of biological mish-mash. Again you use a very narrow set of circumstances and your biased opinion to condemn an entire profession.
I presume you no longer go to your doctor when you are unwell, since the entire “medical profession” is to be condemned.
Ignoratio elenchi : argument from irrelevance.
Anonymous – The word “science” in the phrase “arts and sciences” does not refer to any form of technical education.
“A college of arts and sciences or school of arts and sciences is most commonly an individual institution or a unit within a university that focuses on instruction of the liberal arts and pure sciences, although they frequently include programs and faculty in fine arts, social sciences, and other disciplines such as humanities. They are especially found in North America and the Philippines.”
Your comment contrasted classes involving abstract knowledge with classes involving practical education leading to a career, e.g, engineering. (“They are aiming for highly skilled and technical professions.”) In this sense, the “arts and sciences” are still the heart of undergraduate education in this country.
If you are trying to argue that anything that might be called “science” cannot be politically biased, that is obvious nonsense. We are constantly told that there is something called “climate science”, which is reality politics through and through. And in biology, there was Lysenko. Every branch of knowledge, abstract or technical, can be penetrated by politics.
On the contrary, climatology is an aspect of science related to the other environmental sciences.
Even if the resulting predictions upsets your apple cart.
In northern California, I’ve been astounded to see Kaiser and Stanford scaling back transgender surgeries just since Trump was re-elected. (And even Abortions’r’Us is scaling back abortions.)
How can anyone’s bias make them so unaware of the real world? The “MAGA mob”??? Your bias is terminal I’m afraid.
MAGA MAGA MAGA get new material Gigi
“. . . the vast majority of students are seeking degrees in . . .”
You’re either ignorant or are lying by omission.
Students pursuing those majors must satisfy distribution requirements to graduate. Those requirements include courses in the humanities and social sciences.
Your assertion that there is no bias in the teaching of business courses, for example, is laughably false. Stakeholder theory, socially responsible, social entrepreneurship, an anti-capitalist bias — those tools of social engineering long ago infiltrated business curricula.
Trump is not a president, but he plays one on TV.
We need less Trump and more FDR and Truman.
Only bombing the Russians out of Ukraine will bring peace to Ukraine,
like bombing the Germans out of France brought peace to France.
Trump is too much of a coward to take such a drastic but necessary measure.
The Russians could have been expelled three years ago if someone
had the political will and courage to do what it took to expel them.
But no one did.
FDR declared war on Japanese because the bombed Pearl Harbor, not because they bombed someone else’s territory. You’re a dolt.
FDR manipulated and caused a Japanese attack.
FDR caused a 13-year-long economic disaster when markets and economic concerns should have been left alone.
It wasn’t freedom that caused the depression, it was communist “intervention.”
Communists think they know stuff when they don’t “know” s—!
You don’t mess with “Mr. Market,” he takes care of himself and must be left to his own devices.
The Constitution promises “freedom” not “free stuff” womb to the tomb.
Just like we managed to bomb the Islamicists out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yeah, the Globalist agenda worked well as we bombed them out of Somolia, Iraq and Afghanistan right into London, Germany, the Netherlands, Paris and Minnesota.
Trump is a highly motivated and successful entrepreneur whom Axios estimated to be worth $58 billion in 2025, reported by Yahoo Finance, after inheriting $413 million from his father.
Roosevelt never worked a day in his life, ending up as a sponging politician and a “cheap trick” of “free stuff” giveaways, aka, a redistributive communist who stole OPM (i.e. other people’s money) to buy the loyalty of dependent parasites.
Truman was a working man, clerk, and fortuitous “enterpriser” who soldiered on, ending up in the right place at the right time…sort of.
I feel really sorry for you because you suffer from a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome which does not allow you to think in a reasonable fashion. I am not going to argue with you about facts because you get all your info from far left leaning sites. You sorely lack the ability to discuss any issue from the basis of logic and common sense since almost everything you write about indicates that you can only talk about what you read from liberal media.
*. Anon, I’ve figured it out. The left thinks tvs, radios, computers talk to them and tell them what to do! It’s the effect of too much artificial experience!
The tvs etc do talk to them but not as they think. GPS tells them turn left etc. Interactive media has caused mental illness and unfortunately the boxes have sloppy encoding and may tell them to do horrible things!
Eureka. Found it! It’s toxic.
You want to bomb the Russians? Hey, let’s play World War III and have the apocalypse NOW! Geez – I’m glad you’re nowhere near the levers of power.
This is like how Jews of the Middle Ages pretended to be Christians to avoid persecution.
Don’t forget about Catholics pretending to be Protestants after the Reformation.
Topic Alteration
Speaking of “adaptive learning,” William Shatner, who is Jewish, stated in a previous episode of the History Channel’s UnXplained aired last night that Christianity is false and a fraud and that Christians adopt Biblical teachings to satisfy the world’s Christian religions and Christian and secular leaders.
Anti-Christian Jewish people are cutting off the branch they are standing on. If it is ultimately accepted that Jesus Christ was born of a human mother, Mary, who was impregnated by Jesus’ father, Joseph; that Jesus was a normal human being; that Mary Magdalene was Jesus’ wife; that Jesus was a rabbi and rabbis were typically married; etc., the Christian religion will have no factual basis and enjoy no legitimacy, and the Judaeo-Christian alliance will vaporize.
Mark Levin is fond of referencing the Judaeo-Christian alliance even though Jewish people reject Jesus on many points, perhaps primarily that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God when Jewish people believed the hypothetical Messiah of his time would be a normal and common man.
What would the Middle East look like if there was no umbilical cord running from Washington, D.C., to Jerusalem? It’s not clear that the suggestion that Jesus was simply a normal man and not the Son of God is accretive to Israel and the Jewish people. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs will have to send out a memo imploring Jewish people worldwide to stop promoting the stripping of the deity status of Jesus Christ; it could be lethal.
More than in earlier eras, Jews – especially Israelis – are recognizing that Christians are their friends and are embracing the alliance. Even Jews who do not accept Jesus’s messiahship are able to live quite comfortably with the fact that a large number gentiles revere a Jew who lived 2,000 years ago, whose followers and authors of the New Testament (which quotes the Tenakh prolifically) were all Jewish, and that they believe this Jewish Rabbi is the savior of the world. There may be a few voices out there of Jews who wish to distance themselves from Christians, but I believe they are limited in number. A good snapshot of the overall situation is the close friendship between Ambassador Huckabee, an evangelical Christian, and Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu.
The Torah is central to both Judaism and Christianity, along with the Nevi’im and Ketuvim. The ultimate direction is the same: we are all meant to strive toward God and righteousness. Christians believe the Messiah has already come: Jews continue to wait. History shows many moments when a charismatic leader was thought to be the Messiah, and in the case of Jesus, that belief endured for many. But to me, those differences in wording and interpretation matter far less than the shared pathway. When I listen to the Torah message from Ambassador Huckabee and Prime Minister Netanyahu, I hear much the same truth.
If European and American Christians are wrong and Jesus is not a true deity, they have no compelling connection to Israel, which is entirely on its own, and which will prove to be a serious problem.
From the Jewish perspective, Jesus was never divine. Judaism has always taught belief in one indivisible God, and the Torah does not point to him. The question of Israel’s existence cannot be reduced to a binary about Christian theology.
Israel’s existence and future rest on the covenant between God and the Jewish people. That covenant has carried us through every stage of history. We were enslaved in Egypt and brought out to receive the Torah at Sinai. We endured conquest by the Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans. We survived exile after the destruction of the Temple and centuries of persecution in Christian Europe, culminating in the Holocaust. Despite all of this, the Jewish people endured, and Israel was reborn.
The Torah commanded us to destroy idols in the Land of Israel so they would not tempt us, but it never told us to tear down the beliefs of other nations. Our task is to live by the covenant, affirm the One God, and build a just society in our land. Christians and others may hold their own beliefs, but Jewish destiny does not rest on them. It rests on God, the Torah, and the covenant that has sustained us throughout history.
Gigi, you’ve really convinced me of the value of a gender studies degree, what with your constant ranting and raving here. No way are you obsessed with your intellectual deficiency compared to your betters here in this comment section.
Gigi is her own punishment. George is his own punishment. Imagine having to live life as one of them. Unlike you and me, they have no escape.
I’ve got Donald Trump in my head and I can’t get him out.
“I’ve got Donald Trump in my head and I can’t get him out.”
Gigi, you should charge Trump rent, because he’s living in your diseased cranium for free right now. MAGA MAGA MAGA!!!
As the faculty continue to turn their colleges into woke indoctrination camps that produce unemployable misfits, more prospective students will go elsewhere, or go straight into work. The degree requirement is being quietly dropped all over the place. Even the government of the state of Pennsylvania got rid of needing a degree for most jobs. Way to go professors, you’ve biased your way out of your own jobs.
This is definitely the way to go.
I hear many state medical boards no longer require a degree to get a medical license.
All you need is a bit of online training with ChatGPT.
Pharmacy boards are doing the same thing.
You don’t need a degree to be able to count pills.
You certainly don’t need a degree to practice law.
Engineers don’t really need a degree to design spacecraft or aircraft.
All they need is a bit of on the job experience with a good mechanic.
Architects don’t really need a degree to get licensed now.
They just need to get a bit of training from a good carpenter.
If you think about it, we really don’t need licensed professionals to have college degrees.
All we need are good trade schools
“All we need are good trade schools”
You’re just sore because the plumber gets paid more than you do with your fancy gender studies degree. We tried to warn you.
“You certainly don’t need a degree to practice law.”
You actually don’t. You just have to pass the bar. Way to own goal, Gigi.
Does the “pharmacist” behind the truck stop that you visit have a degree? Curious minds want to know!
It has been this way in universities for some time, even in the late 1970s when I was in college. I knew that all I had to write somewhere in a paper was something along the lines of “this shows how man’s inhumanity to man transcends the class struggle” or similar gibberish. It was good for an A-. But what was apparent to me was I was mouthing lies I did not believe, and it was no different than being in the Soviet Union. Everyone mouths the lies, and while there are “true believers” many know it’s hogwash. A system built on lies, that people know are lies, can’t survive. The USSR didn’t.
“Everyone mouths the lies, and while there are “true believers” many know it’s hogwash.”
Wait, are you suggesting, just as an example picked out the air, that men can’t magically turn themselves into women? Or vice versa? The hell you say.
Anon at 12:58
So you are one of those who pursued a worthless humanities degree.
Keep in mind that less than 10% of college students are humanities majors.
The vast majority of students are seeking degrees in science, medicine, engineering, business, computer science, to name but a few.
They have clear goals of entering highly skilled and often licensed professions.
There is no conservative or liberal bias in the training of these highly focused individuals.
You take your experience as a humanities major from 50 years ago and extrapolate to the absurd conclusion that college education has failed
You are an idiot.
Anon at 2:16
So you are one of those who pursued a career in racism because anyone with a college degree is a racist.
You are a racist.
“Keep in mind that less than 10% of college students are humanities majors.”
Majors is not the issue, evasive one.
That fact is that colleges have distribution requirements, which includes courses in the humanities and social sciences. That’s *100%* of college students who take those courses.
Why is the professor attacking Harvard? If Harvard wishes to have a liberal faculty it’s their prerogative as a private institution. And what requires any institution to have an equal number of conservartive professors or Republicans? There is or has never been a “purge” of conservatives from Universities and Colleges. That’s just a myth made up to antagonize conservatives against liberal Universities and Colleges because their views are not accepted or some outright rejected by most students.
What would consrvative professors or a Republican affiliation add to what is already well known to the general public? Professor Turley never talks about that or explains why would their views be beneficial? If students who identify as conservative or Republican are too scared or worried about how their views will be seen that’s on them. Not liberal professors. They are more afraid of being mocked or ridiculed. They are afraid or worried about the criticism and it seems the professor wants Universities to respect and give conservative views and prevent those views from being mocked, criticized, or scrutinized in classrooms. That would earn them the label of “Republican snowflakes” it’s earned when all they can do is complain about not being able to expess their views without being mocked or ridiculed. Real conservatives don’t shy away from their views and opinions. Maybe professor Turley should be teaching a class on how students who identify as conservative or Republican can assert their views with the expectation that they may get ridiculed or criticized by….an opposing view.
George, trying being less judgmental about other peoples’s views for once, and you might actually learn something new. As it is, you exist in an hermetically sealed echo chamber where any other point of view is automatically bounced away, lest you be bothered by wrongthink. It’s amazing that you keep coming here yet fail to absorb even a glimmer of the knowledge on offer.
What are you talking about?
Nobody is being judgmental. Pointing out the flaw about the professor’s argument is fair game.
If conservatives are afraid of expressing their views at a Universitty because they might be ridiculed or criticized that’s on them not the faculty. Complaining about conservatives being “purged” from Univerities and Colleges and laying blame on liberal professors “pressuring” students to conform to progressive views is as stupid as it gets. Any real conservative would not mind having his or her views or opinions aired out in a classroom. A real conservative would understand that to express an opposing view in a liberal school also brings the risk of ridicule or criticism. Conservatives think their views or opinions should be respected regardless of how controversial they are. That’s not up to the school or faculty. It’s up to the students who will obviously offer their opposing views or criticism. “Conservative snowflakes” is an appropriate label for these kinds of complaints.
George please stop spazzing out here. Get your own safe space.
I received my undergrad degree from Temple U many years ago when it was then a very liberal university. I watched as students either lapped up the liberal positions of the professors or dared to take issue with them. This was very upsetting to me because my father taught me to think on my own and evaluate information before making a decision. Parental guidance today is sorely lacking in this area. Parents need to teach their children to be independent thinkers and not just go along with the crowd or in this case, the college professors. Unfortunately, we are raising a bunch of robots, mostly liberal.
The professor’s assertion based on an opinion citing a study that is not linked or shown sounds sketchy.
What about conservative schools? If his focus is only on Liberal schools surely there are conservative schools like BYU, Liberty University, Prager U, Notra Dame that have more Republican or conservative faculty.
The professor himself is a democrat/libertarian at Washington University. Is it also a progressive liberal University? Why isn’t he protesting the lack of conservatives or Republicans at this own school? Is he self-censoring because he is in the minority?
The “conservative snowflake” issue is valid. They are still free to express their views and opinions. Nothing stops them from airing their views. If they are not brave enough or couragous enough to stand up to an opposing view then what is the point of complaining? This self-censoring excuse is just that an excuse. Professor Turley paints University enviroments as hostile to conservative views without real proof that it’s true. He seems to be pushing for DEI without knowing he is. He wants equal representation of conservative views or more Republican faculty. Problem is conservatives or Republicans are anti-intellectualists already. Why would they want to be part of the the thing they detest the most? It’s just plain weird and frankly stupid.
George, nobody cares about your fact-free rant. All the professor is asking for is that the faculty simply stop discriminating against anyone to the right of Mao. It’s not that hard, it doesn’t require any laws or regulations. You’re just too dense to understand that.
Is it against the law to discriminate against conservatives or Republicans? No.
Republicans or conservatives are not making a very good case or none at all to be considered as faculty in liberal leaning schools. Complaining and saying they are being “purged” is not an argument.
The professor is inadvertently advocating for DEI for conservative point of views and opinions. It looks like he wants to force it upon schools by painting them as biased against conservative views. The problem is he doesn’t make the case for why should their views be included? Conservatives have been making their case for years on the internet, podcasts, and even on main stream media, but weirdly enough they have not done so at the Universities or Colleges. Perhaphs because students may not be interested or curious enough to demand it. Professor Turley’s complaints fall flat the moment he proclaims conservatives have been “purged” from universities and Colleges. That’s never been true.
“The professor is inadvertently advocating for DEI for conservative point of views and opinions. It looks like he wants to force it upon schools by painting them as biased against conservative views. The problem is he doesn’t make the case for why should their views be included? Conservatives have been making their case for years on the internet, podcasts, and even on main stream media, but weirdly enough they have not done so at the Universities or Colleges. Perhaphs because students may not be interested or curious enough to demand it. Professor Turley’s complaints fall flat the moment he proclaims conservatives have been “purged” from universities and Colleges. That’s never been true.”
Funny, we leftist faculty have been filtering out anyone who had a resume that was anything to right of Mao for decades, but for some bizarre unknowable reason, we have zero conservative faculty in our department. Shazaam!!!
All right, who upvoted this slop? Fess up.
“Problem is conservatives or Republicans are anti-intellectualists already. Why would they want to be part of the the thing they detest the most? It’s just plain weird and frankly stupid.”
Since you’re typing this from a basement somewhere in Beijing probably, let me give you a little history that you wouldn’t be aware of. Up until the 60s college faculty was actually quite conservative. It was only after the radical left took over did things change. And has the quality of our colleges and universities improved since? The results speak for themselves. Don’t come here and lecture us about anti-intellectualism you putz.
How do we know college faculty was conservative?
How did they take over? Could it be that people became more aware of an…opposing view and found it more intersting than the status quo?
It could have been because more students started thinking for themselves instead of just taking what they were being taught and never questioning it?
Now conservatives need to make their case that their views are worthy or they are offering something new. That has not been happening and thanks to the internet their views and opinions are now seen more and expressed more. The professor doesn’t mention it, but that’s important and it also shapes how students perceive conservative views or opinons. Obviously they are not universally accepted and most are opposed to them. Universities and Colleges are where any student or faculty is supposed to be able to express views that are not accepted by everyone. It’s up to conservative students or faculty to gather the courage to express them and accept the fact that they can expect some ridicule or harsh criticism. That’s how free speech works here. Jordan Peterson famously did this and he accepted the consequences and as a result gained fame and respect among many students. His views were not censored or used to deny him a teaching position.
As I’ve said before maybe the term “conservative snowflake” is well deserved.
It’s call a survey. Look it up.
This how we know for a fact that you’re not American. Why do you think it was a cultural shock to have all of these new leftist faculty members starting in the 60s? Hmm?? Was it because the existing faculty was too left wing already??? Do you have any critical thinking skills?
Hasn’t it always been this way? People want to succeed; in Academics, Work, Civil Society and Home.
So pandering to the; Professor, Boss, Community and Spouse, is part of successful participation.
In College its about getting that degree, presumably with the highest GPA you can get.
So why not suck-up to the Professor’s Political whims. Believe me it’s not just the Classroom Professor and Proctor, it’s the Dean’s ass you have to kiss in order to get that; B.A./B.S., Masters, Ph.D., JD etc….
In the real world if you want to move up the ladder, then you get on-board with the Bosses and those whom are on-board with Them (Trump is a good example of this). Your Community, it means spending your time with the; Local Board, School Programs, Community Projects. Home is spending time with the Family, Doing what they want etc.. (And for you Jonathan, this means walking Luna more often and for longer QT time together!)
I don’t think there is anything new or controversial about this, So the next time you hold the Audience of a Lecture, Throw them off track, start with something like: “I don’t think Taylor Swift is as gifted as she is”, then give it a second to see whom falls in line with your missive. The “Adaptive” ones will come calling. The point of this comment is that the ‘real views or values’ will always be an Invisible Hand as it is sown into the fabric of our modern Society. (it’s why we have; White Markets, Grey Markets, Black Markets – Survival and Self-Preservation).
What is telling is that You as a Prosecutor or Defender should know that getting the Jury to “Sway” your way is based on the ‘atmosphere’ created by your argument, it’s efficacy upon the Jury Box and Judge (i.e.: the efficacy of the Lecture Hall).
The argument of your Post, tend to portrait that the ‘Venue’ (the Liberal College Atmosphere) sets such conditions that the Venue be moved to a more favorable jurisdiction [And this may be the Case]. However the Bench Trial is held in the University/College’s Chancellery Board, the Battle ground is in the Classroom (Conservatives need to keep the pressure on).
The time is coming where the University/College’s will establish an identifying line, either Liberal or Conservative, liken this to the identity of Public and Parochial Schools. There was a time when Academia was like this, and we maybe coming around full circle again. Because People want their money’s worth in the end, as They are paying more for it than ever.
“Honesty is the best policy” a proverb that means telling the truth is the most beneficial approach in the long run, even when it’s difficult.
“Honesty” No-Longer Pays for itself in Academia.
[P.S. – i.e.: In all Honesty Professor, do you really know if this comment was A.I. Generated or not? Am I being ‘Dishonest’ if it was used?]
Yours Truly – Always Man’s Best Friend,
Luna 🐕
*. You say…do you honestly know if this is AI generated?
There’s work being done on sloppy encoding and what computers give as responses to questions. Sloppy encoding produces bad results.
A true story–> I needed a fence mended and man showed up to inquire. I noticed he seemed very distraught so I talked to him. He explained there was a conspiracy by the government to control people. He began to cry, sobbing the government was trying to control him. I asked how he knew this. He explained to me that his car radio told him what to do. I did not hire him knowing he was insane and I was fearful after he explained he had been in jail for beating people. He eventually committed suicide.
I later realized he didn’t understand his car computer did talk to him as do tvs and other devices.
The investigation into sloppy encoding revealed that when asked questions about being bored the computers responses included, you could kill your husband, you could commit mass murder and other.
The conditions in colleges is very serious.
*. Sloppy encoding is being taught in these schools. These are sloppy intellectuals. This is VERY dangerous.
This person Luigi mangione may very well have been told by his computer to murder the CEO.
What do you think is going on with all these killings? Media is AI. It IS telling people to do this via images–>Maxine Watters and get in their faces IS AI. over and over and over. She’s a media phenomenon. Personally, this new phenomenon Mamdani get 0 attention from me.
Can man use his ability to reason and limit AI?
I didn’t fix anything broken today. You? 🤔
Most faculty in this country are physical cowards. Few will risk their own worthless skins for anything, but instead, they like to hang back in the faculty lounge while the easily led do their rioting for them. Trained monkeys and their organ grinders.
What the trained monkeys don’t know is that their impeccable professors actually have ulterior motives: the price of higher ed in the USA has outpaced medical inflation for decades. Getting a degree can bankrupt a kid for life now, but making professors extra comfy on a four-hour workday doesn’t fit the narrative, so the mainstream media never calls them out.
More ulterior motives: empire building on campuses so that administrators can justify bigger salaries. Eggheads brainwashing students in the Democrat brand so that Democrats can get elected and send more money for empire building on campuses. It’s business model even Karl Marx would approve.
Maybe they invented DEI and hired these enforcers just to shut people up about what was going on. Ya can’t get more imperial than that.
On top of all that education, these frauds know even less about reality than a layman. They may not know what a woman is, but I know what an idiot is: anybody who still trusts them.
I almost forgot. Can’t have an empire without a slave class. In modern parlance, we call them postdocs.
Then there’s the growing problem of academic fraud. Heck, this comment practically writes itself.
Diogenes, you’re the dog? 😂 😂
Dio, are you a human?
“Most faculty in this country are physical cowards.”
They’re mental cowards too. Once the DEI system falls apart, they will just fall in line with the new system as if DEI never happened in the first place.
Yet still no comment about the military occupation of DC by a hostile force.
“ Yet still no comment about the military occupation of DC by a hostile force.”
Did you say the same thing when Dictator Pelosi had thousands of the same forces protecting her? I thought not. Loser.
“Yet still no comment about the military occupation of DC by a hostile force.”
Here comes the left defending criminals again. Gigi, is there a single 80/20, or 90/10, or even 95/5 issue you won’t take the wrong side on? Is it any wonder that your failed party has a sub 20% approval rating?
Gigi, go ahead and spend a few hours in Anacostia, then get back to us when you want some help from that “hostile force”. That is, if you’re not shot dead.
*
It’s still small fish with NG. They need to send in the regular army and clean it up.
My comment
What good is higher education anymore? You are simply buying an incredibly expensive piece of paper. I’m pretty sure that one could learn more and better following a well thought out curriculum with ChatGPT.
I used to go to school to get over the hump in understanding tough ideas. The professor helped me have breakthroughs in understanding. He could answer questions. Now these roles are better filled by a good AI.
I agree 100%.
AI and ChatGTP can replace higher education these days.
No need for colleges or universities at all.
I just learned how to do brain surgery and cardiac bypass surgery online.
I also learned how to design rockets and satellites and airliners.
And I am currently learning how to build nuclear reactors for nuclear submarines.
Universities are just a waste of time and money.
That’s right.
I know everything about quantum computing from ChatGPT.
I am building a quantum computer in my basement, and I never even finished high school.
“I agree 100%.
AI and ChatGTP can replace higher education these days.
No need for colleges or universities at all.
I just learned how to do brain surgery and cardiac bypass surgery online.
I also learned how to design rockets and satellites and airliners.
And I am currently learning how to build nuclear reactors for nuclear submarines.
Universities are just a waste of time and money.”
Gigi, I can understand your confusion because, in your case, your gender studies degree has proven invaluable in your truck stop “servicing” job.
Grow some balls, prepare for failure and live or life with zero regrets!! Our country could not exist iF EVERYONE WASS A CHICKEN SHIZ punk bish.
Where is the study showing how Harvard screens applicants for admission? I presume there is an additional bias in the admission process culling conservative applicants in favor of progressives. Easy to do based on the applicant’s family background, essays, classes taken in high school, sources of recommendations, outside activities stated on application, and more. What a shame Harvard has gone down this sordid road.
Maybe conservative or Republican students who identify as such have not provided enough evidence of their merits that meet Harvard requirements. The complaints are of being ostracized or denied because they are being conservative or Republican is stupid. Do they literally ask if they are? Do students openly say they are? I don’t belileve so. It seems this is more about sowing doubt and attacking a prestigious institution because of…jealousy or resentment. Apply and let your merits do the work. Don’t complain and whine about it.
“Maybe conservative or Republican students who identify as such have not provided enough evidence of their merits that meet Harvard requirements. The complaints are of being ostracized or denied because they are being conservative or Republican is stupid. Do they literally ask if they are? Do students openly say they are? I don’t belileve so. It seems this is more about sowing doubt and attacking a prestigious institution because of…jealousy or resentment. Apply and let your merits do the work. Don’t complain and whine about it.”
Spoken as someone who has absolutely zero experience in higher education in America. Where are you, really? Lahore?
–and lifts and copy-pastes from others. yea, that’s our georgie.
Funny that we grant asylum to thousands of foreign immigrants if they “suffer” persecution on account of….[inter alia] “political opinion.” INA § 101(a)(42); 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) –“Persecution” includes deliberate imposition of substantial economic disadvantage.
…while here in the U.S. our public educational institutions may ostracize, malign, vote out, limit (by assignment, title, promotion, tenure, publications), or deny employment to professors based on conservative/libertarian political opinions? And the only recourse is protracted litigation?
Yes, pretty much the only recourse is protracted litigation. If they wanted to leave and claim refugee status somewhere else, where would that be?
Currently southern France
No, you can’t get in. It’s reserved.
Harvard is a private institution. They can choose whoever they want for their faculty.
What can conservative faculty offer that would be beneficial for students education? How would being a Republican make a difference in value? Are republicans really being “purged” or are they choosing to not apply because they view Universities and Colleges as elitist? There is an anti-intellctual attititude within conservative circles. Why would they want to be a part of that and then complain their views are not being accepted or rejected when they are expressed? The point of expressing an opposing view is not just expressing it, but also accepting the fact that they will not always be accepted or that they may be ridiculed or criticized. There is an assumption from the conservative viewpoint that their points of view cannot be expressed because they are either mocked, ridiculed, or harshly criticized. Therefore they cry foul and blame liberal faculty of indoctrinating students against their views. Perhaps they are not making good arguments and they often argue with students exercising critical thinking skills, skepticism, etc.
“Harvard is a private institution. They can choose whoever they want for their faculty”
Absolutely false. Once they take a single dollar from the federal government, we have power over them. Don’t want the feds involved? Simple, don’t take their money. Use some of that fancy endowment that we keep hearing about.
It’s incredible to me that you don’t understand this basic fact regarding federal funding. It’s like you’re living under a rock, or working the keyboard in some dank Beijing basement.
The government funding or grants do not give the government the power to dictate their admissions policies. They are still a private school. Forcing the school to hire more conervatives or Republicans would run against the school’s 1st amendment rights. It would be forced speech on the government’s part.
You misundertand the idea that accepting government dollars automatically means a private organization gives up it’s constiutional rights. That’s not how it works. Unless they enter into a very specific agreement there is no assumption that accepting government grants means giving up control of how their school.
“The government funding or grants do not give the government the power to dictate their admissions policies. They are still a private school.”
Absolutely false, once again. You have no idea what you’re talking about. Have you seen literally nothing regarding college admissions from over the last sixty years? Why are you even here wasting our time if you’re this uninformed?
Prove you case. Show us how my argument is false. Just saying so isn’t an argument.
georgie, did you even notice that “Lin” said, “public institutions?” Who said anything about Harvard. For one who complains about reading comprehension you sure flunk that test. joker.
What law requires public institutions to hire a balanced faculty made up of equal parts Democrats and Republicans or Liberals and conservatives? Sounds a lot like someone wants DEI policies back in.
“What law requires public institutions to hire a balanced faculty made up of equal parts Democrats and Republicans or Liberals and conservatives? Sounds a lot like someone wants DEI policies back in.”
Gigi, who said anything about a law? It’s so simple even someone of such obvious mental deficiency like you can figure it out. You take the government money, the government sets the rules. You don’t take the government money, the government can’t set the rules. It’s not our fault that you leftists sued and sued to force the federal government into every college. You even had it declared that taking federally backed student loans gave the government power over a college.
So you’re saying you have experiene applying to attend Harvard and because you went to community college you know all about their process. Cute.
“So you’re saying you have experiene applying to attend Harvard and because you went to community college you know all about their process. Cute.”
First, use a spellchecker. Second, you’re making such a huge leap in logic that the precedent and antecedent aren’t in the same county, hell, they’re not even on the same planet. How do you get there from here? What are you even trying to say? Do you even know?
Actually I find these polls and surveys somewhat comforting. It’s not just adaptive, it’s basic survival. In a hostile environment, you keep your head down until you have assessed the situation and have a better grasp of the ground you are about to move into. It’s risk assessment on a personal level.
How do think black Americans survived in an overtly racist, segregated society. They modified behavior and language to lower the risk. And emerged more forcefully when the culture was more moderate and safer. Not totally safe but it was always a risk based assessment. Same for homosexuals especially in the entertainment industry and then later the whole of society. Those that led paid a heavy price but those that followed and picked up the torch then made headway that the 1st leaders ever achieved.
The time to emerge your true self is something that is felt rather than calculated. In Medical Education we always had dictatorial attending physicians who had basic life or death decisions on your career. You kept your head down through those rotations and then acted and spoke differently under the inspirational leaders. The more experience and competence that often came with time then would allow you to step forward and show your true self. Some stepped forth earlier than others, depending on confidence, brilliance stubborness, and a host of other factors. It was always individually determined.
When I was a resident in Internal Medicine on Oncology we had one of those attendings who loved to humiliate the medical students. We would make rounds daily and somewhere in those rounds our Attending would want a pack of cigarettes (the Oncologist smoked 3-4 packs per day). He would insist a junior medical student (pointed out by him) must go down to the lobby and buy him cigarettes and bring them back to him. Med student after med student would do that because of their fear of failing the rotation. Until 1 day the chosen one looked straight back at the Attending and said “No, I’m not your servant and I’m not getting your damn cigarettes”. I waited for the explosion that never came. Risk Assessment on a personal level. I gave him an outstanding grade and so did the professor. No explosion occurred and that game stopped.
We all do it every day just like an algorithm.
@GEB
Sadly your comparison to racism is apt – your attendant represents that entire culture in 2025. The only solution I see is to keep hurting enrollment and create alternatives – one can’t bully or indoctrinate an empty room.
“one can’t bully or indoctrinate an empty room”
But they can make me pay for them to lecture an empty room, using my tax dollars.