Yale University has finally achieved the academic version of Nirvana, a state of perfect peace and enlightenment. A recent study found that the faculty had finally purged every Republican donor from its ranks. While 98 percent of the political donations went to Democrats, not a single professor could be found who gave to a single Republican candidate. The complete lock for Democrats is in a country that is split evenly between Republicans and Democrats.
The Yale Daily News reviewed more than 7,000 Federal Election Commission filings from 2025 listing Yale as the employer: “Of 1,099 filings that included ‘professor’ in their occupation, 97.6 percent of the donations went to Democrats, while the remaining 2.4 percent went to independent candidates or groups,” the student newspaper reported Jan. 14.”
The study reinforces the recent Buckley Institute report, which found that, of the 43 departments surveyed, 27 entire departments contained zero Republican professors.
Even if the study missed a couple of donations, the radical imbalance is a reflection of the lack of diversity at the school. It is not a perfect point of comparison. There can be a conservative or libertarian faculty member who does not make donations and does not register with any party.
Moreover, those of us who have criticized the lack of diversity have not argued for partisan criteria in faculty appointments. Rather, these are metrics that help show the lack of diversity. Many scholars prefer to dismiss these criticisms as speculative or unproven. However, the problem has long been obvious and these studies reinforce what critics have said for years.
One professor is quoted as acknowledging the apparent problem. Carlos Eire, a history and religious studies professor, said, “It’s true, there is very, very, very little intellectual diversity at Yale and at most institutions of higher learning when it comes to politics.” Professor Eire added,“Academics in the US, Canada and Europe have been leaning left for the past three or four generations. And this is something that shows no signs of being corrected or correcting itself anytime soon.”
He is correct.
I was asked by the president of a top-ranked university how he could reverse this problem. He was convinced that the lack of intellectual diversity was causing lasting harm to higher education. I told him that one thing is clear: you cannot rely on faculty members to restore diversity.
I was at a dinner not long ago with a Harvard Law Professor who told me and others that he could not be expected to vote for a faculty candidate with whom he disagreed. Two of us objected that we do that all the time to reinforce intellectual diversity. He was entirely unapologetic and unyielding that he would not vote for faculty candidates who embrace conservative views of the Constitution that he considers wrong.
Faculty members have privately acknowledged for years that they have largely eliminated conservatives and libertarians, but rationalize their records on not finding “intellectually promising” conservative candidates. If the imbalance involved race or gender, a court would crush arguments that the lack of diversity is some unintended consequence of the applicant pool.
University presidents must create enclaves of diversity outside these departments, through institutes and centers that faculty members do not control.
Take Harvard.
As I discuss in my book “The Indispensable Right,” Harvard is not just an academic echo chamber. It is a virtual academic sensory deprivation tank.
In a country with a majority of conservative and libertarian voters, fewer than 9 percent of the Harvard student body and less than 3 percent of the faculty members identify as conservative.
For years, Harvard faculty have brushed away complaints over its liberal orthodoxy, including purging conservative faculty. It has created one of the most hostile schools for free speech in the nation, ranking dead last among universities in annual studies by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).
Only a third of students at Harvard feel comfortable speaking on campus despite being overwhelmingly liberal at an overwhelmingly liberal institution. (The percentage is much higher for the small number of conservative students).
Some faculty are more honest than others.
Not long ago, I debated Professor Randall Kennedy at Harvard Law School about the lack of ideological diversity at the school. I respect Kennedy and I do not view him as anti-free speech or intolerant. Yet when I noted the statistics on the vanishing number of conservative students and faculty in comparison to the nation, Kennedy responded that Harvard “is an elite university” and does not have to “look like America.”
Of course, the problem is that Harvard does not even look like Massachusetts, which is nearly 30 percent Republican.
Yale, however, is now a perfect echo chamber where moderate, libertarian, and conservative students (if they can make it into the school) are left to self-censor and avoid backlash for their views.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the author of the forthcoming “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Yale… the Bush alma mater.. figures.
. OT
I began listening to Professor Alan Dershowitz during covid and looked forward anxiously to his you tube blog everyday. I then began to print out SCOTUS opinions and reading them wondering what this is all about. Professor Dershowitz remains dear to my heart as I recall struggling to understand.
Professor Dershowitz no longer posts. He stopped after his son, Elon, passed away. I think someone is using his image now with chatGPT. It’s not the same.
Professor Turley, your open blog is also interesting. I enjoy references to cases. I follow what I can.
I wondered for a very long time about neutrality. I finally found it. Freedom is neutral and becomes what the individual makes of it. Freedom to a criminal is crime and Freedom to another may bring truth to the table. Freedom of speech is neutral and takes form by it’s use and by the character of a person.
The point was neutrality and character. The Constitution is a marvelous document.
^^^ In other words, thank you, PT.
FREEDOM and speech and press and more are two sided coins. One side is dark and lawless.
Unfortunately the world hasn’t embraced physics yet, specifically Special Relativity
The Political Spectrum is politics and more horizontal
The only spectrum that matters is the Vertical Spectrum of Liberty vs Tyranny; Top least debt, Bottom most debt
Collectivism cannot survive without deficit spending, eventual bankruptcy
The Dem Party is Collectivism
Many types of Collectivism; Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Islamism, Monarchy, et al
Anything economic system that relies on debt is Collectivism
Collectivism is ALWAYS governed by Fascists/Social Darwinists
Liberty (least debt) vs Tyranny (most debt) is on a vertical spectrum
Most governors like Tyranny, believe it
That’s why USA has $39 trillion National Debt
USA became a Collectivist economy in 1980
Some people think Tyranny is necessary to control humanity, that’s the “warmth of Collectivism”
Some people think “good intentions” mean debt won’t affect the State
Some people are just emotional
Some people want to be peasants, “Equity of Misery”
Some people are masochistic, suicidal
Some people don’t want to be judged by their character, they like bad habits
These people don’t understand, physics will eventually bankrupt them all
These axioms are a product of Relativity (mostly Special Relativity) affecting Human Nature (Situational Gravity)
Almost no one understands this
When I try to explain the science to people (even CalTech PhDs), almost all people react like chimps
If you’re writing 1000 word comments, you need to get your own blog and leave the rest of us alone. A comment is a comment, not a post.
Morning! Then don’t read them. 1,000+ word comments, even a 50 word comment, very often lack brevity and comprehension, and often go off on un intelligible tangents. And as one can see from that recent comment, its always two egos playing children games.
Do note that m. molovinsky seems to have his own blog. Hopefully he stays there. Just another child ego running rampant on the internet.
Mr. Troll, I’m afraid you don’t know much about the 2nd Amendment, independents conservatives or the concept of truth.
The quotes about Hillary were not written by me, as you know. In 2016 she was actually addressing straw buyers, people who buy large quantities of guns to resell on the black market.
Mark Kelly was addressing a recent spate of school shootings.
Although the NRA considers any change a “slippery slope”, over the years there has been changes. Age requirements, machine guns, etc. Almost all the guns confiscated from gangs are unregistered.
You can be a conservative but not approve of Trump. You could be a MAGA, and not be a moron (maybe). You could be an anonymous troll and attack somebody who actually uses their name.
Mark Kelly 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤡
Okay all you military men, don’t follow the Commander and Chiefs “unlawful orders”. You know, if he should ever issue one. Meanwhile, the State and local governments in every sanctuary city is failing to follow the lawful order of established immigration laws. An overwhelming number of Americans demand they be enforced before Americans lose their country.
By the way, most all semiautomatic shotguns are gas operated and most all of the recent mass school shooters have been produced by the “cut your breasts and/or dik off” crowd. If they are white, they are spun as white supremacist. Now run along Svelaz.
Move on meathead, you past the point of no return days ago.
michael molovinsky says: Mr. Troll, I’m afraid you don’t know much about the 2nd Amendment, independents conservatives or the concept of truth.
Mr. Cheap Fake Conservative Second Amendment Supporter: that desperate deflection and denial isn’t going to serve as a rebuttal to defend your lies and fraudulent persona. It’s another lie – not truth – to say you’re a conservative Second Amendment supporter while telling everybody you’re all on board with Kelly’s gun control bill.
That just labels you as a moron Cheap Fake Conservative Second Amendment Supporter: a registration scheme, prohibiting “assault weapons”, requiring fixed magazines on all gas operated firearms… none of that complies with the 2nd Amendment and what SCOTUS has determined are infringements on the Second Amendment.
That’s how you tell us you’re a liar – or a moron – without posting that’s what you are.
As you’re cosplaying as being a knowledgeable Cheap Fake 2nd Amendment supporter, there’s numerous points in Kelly’s bill which you support that violate already established limitations on what government can do in the way “reasonable gun control”. A Second Amendment supporter like yourself… but you didn’t recognize any of that! You just happily sucked it all in – and now believe people reading your BullSchiff defense will be as equally gullible as you.
Further, you aren’t much of a gun owner where knowledge is concerned when you’re on board with fixed magazines on gas operated pistols and shotguns. Bro… do you even Airsoft????
You can disagree with Trump on issues – I as well as others here do at times. But unlike YOU – we don’t lie about who we are and what we support to make those criticisms under a false flag of lies.
Your move, you Cheap Fake Conservative Second Amendment Supporter police state fascist.
Trollhole, I’m having trouble getting pass the gatekeeper with my actual sign-in identity. I self identify as an independent conservative and a supporter of the 2nd. You and the NRA feel any rules are a slippery slope, while you know that if you buy a gun (in Pa. anyway) you must fill out a long form which must be approved by the state. For someone who hides behind an anonymous tag, calling someone a “cheap fake” is rather ironic. Michael Molovinsky
“Mark Kelly was addressing a recent spate of school shootings.”
Ooooohhh… there’s a great excuse for supporting his attempt to shred the 2nd. But Kelly has no worries about the percentage of those recent shootings being committed by trannies???
Winner, winner, chicken dinner! You sure showed him!
2-A: sorry to inform you, but in all rational view of past performance and the evidence of current disarming of the citizenry, globally, any and all changes to gun controls are always a slippery slope.
As for Mark Kelly, riding on his wife’s coattails, he needs to address the spate of violence committed by his constituents, i.e, the mentally ill.
Conservatives who do not approve of Trump are dangerously-shortsighted, and a drag on the dire need for reversing the rapid (and illegal) changes instituted by the Biden-Regime. This reversal requires a bold leader who will have to do some brave and unpleasant things to achieve that reversal.
Get on board of STFU.
The couple sentences in italics were written by me…I was more eloquent ten years ago and didn’t recognize my own writing. However, again, enhanced background checks do not erode the 2nd Amendment.
What are you even rambling about?
“Mr Troll” put you to shame and proved themselves to be far more informed than yourself.
The Harvard Law Professor “was entirely unapologetic and unyielding that he would not [give a good grade to a student] who embrace[s] conservative views of the Constitution . . .”
If you believe that his bias stops at hiring, you are naive (or worse).
michael molovinsky says Mr. Troll, Since you’re such an expert on my archives, perhaps you can remind me of the date for this supposed Clinton gun control? I support the 2nd, and the only proposal I ever supported was the Kelly/Gifford.
Mr. Cheap Fake Conservative American 2nd Amendment Supporter: you already destroyed the facade you attempted to build here of being a conservative Second Amendment supporter with your above confession to advocating in favor of the Kelly/Gifford gun control fascism. Here’s what you support in that bill – while claiming you’re a conservative and Second Amendment supporter:
APRIL 10, 2025: Arizona Senator Mark Kelly and his colleagues reintroduced the Gas-Operated Semi-Automatic Firearms Exclusion (GOSAFE) Act, commonsense legislation to protect communities from gun violence while safeguarding Americans’ constitutional right to own a firearm.
Ah! Those commie Democrat code words that won your little conservative 2nd Amendment supporting heart over: “commonsense” and “reasonable”! Who could possibly be opposed to anything they’re assured is “commonsense and reasonable”???? And an “exclusion” isn’t as bad as a “ban”, is it???? Well, read on Mikey!
The GOSAFE Act would:
– Regulate the sale, transfer, and manufacture of gas-operated semi-automatic firearms:
– Establish a list of prohibited firearms;
– Limit high-capacity ammunition devices;
– Preventing unlawful modifications of permissible firearms;
– Mandating that future gas-operated designs are approved before manufacture;
– Preventing unlawful firearm self-assembly and manufacturing;
– Prohibiting machinegun conversion devices;
– Outlaw conversion devices; and
– Protect Americans’ Second Amendment rights.
Oh, that last point of Democrat legislation protecting our Second Amendment rights… isn’t that a killer for commie clown show comedy!!!!!
Why Mikey! You and Senator Kelly have the same exact support for the Second Amendment – or at least your Democrat version of what the Second Amendment should look like.
Oh… and that date you would reminded of for your posting regarding Clinton’s campaign for gun control? Your search engine works for me – how come not for you? Took about ten seconds to find again:
29 July 2016 “The Audacity Of Hope”:
Hillary delivered the best speech of her life, but no less would have sufficed… She was most successful when addressing the subject of weapons. She built a case that she might have a better demeanor to be Commander In Chief than Trump. Her approach to gun control was pragmatic; Honor the second amendment, but refine the background checks.
Meanwhile… here’s Hillary’s words of pragmatic gun control honoring the Second Amendment:
“There can be and must be reasonable regulation of gun ownership. I believe weapons of war have no place on our streets and we may have our disagreements about gun safety regulations, but we should all be able to agree on a few essential things. I also believe that giving immunity to gunmakers and sellers was a terrible mistake. Because it removed any accountability from the makers and the sellers. I voted against giving them immunity, but I think we should very seriously move to repeal that and go back to making sure gun makers and sellers are like any other business. They can be held accountable.”
There you go Mikey… you just got your Cheap Fake American ass chewed by a “Troll” that took the time to read the verbal excrement that passes through that extra anus in the middle of your face. And in reading that speech you praised, I realized that Clinton talking about Trump in 2016 and pitching for accepting Illegal Aliens sounds like she’s your sister from another mother who’s feeding you the lines you post here each day.
I don’t mind opposing opinions based on fact Mikey; those can be honestly debated. But I despise posing phony liars who attempt to give their posts gravity by claiming they’re somebody they are not, possessing values that they do not have. You are at best a Code Pink Republican… and I don’t think you have enough values to meet the “conservative” values of that group.
There you go. It’s your move Mr. Cheap Fake Conservative American 2nd Amendment Supporter… waiting…
You showed him. Now run along…after you get done patting yourself on the back(which may not be ever).
I’m off to see how I can get those 2 minutes back it took to read your screed. ((((((((YAWN)))))))
I’m off to see how I can get those 2 minutes back it took to read your screed. ((((((((YAWN)))))))
Wow… ever considered signing an organ donor card to assure making some kind of contribution to the country at least once??? Given your vacuous and meaningless life spent cuddling in the Democrat Borg… it’s not like you lost any time being productive or anything similar in that wreck that is your existence of Bolshevik buffoonery.
But hey… thanks for showing up to attempt to play! X is always looking for like gullible minions; he could use the company.
Liberalism if a fatal brain disease.
Well done Anon. Gotta say ole Meathead Mike really is a … meathead.
.The United States has gun control. Having a gun is neutral until its in the hands of either a robber or hunter. The gun control employed is incarceration for criminals.
Nimrods, it’s like speech and press are neutral until used by liars or honest people.
Quite amazing