Until recently, college was almost unquestionably valued as a natural next step for graduating high school seniors: an opportunity to expand their knowledge, gain valuable soft and hard skills, and learn about adulthood. But in the last decade or so, these perceptions have changed significantly.
Recent surveys of Americans show that our institutions of higher education now have a serious trust problem. A number of factors have contributed to this loss of trust, but perhaps the most important is the perception of ideological capture and indoctrination, specifically that most universities have become left-wing echo chambers that encourage adherence to one set of views at the expense of open inquiry and viewpoint diversity.
The dynamics that create such an environment are admittedly varied and complex. But the fact is, on most American campuses today there are real reputational, academic, and societal risks involved in sharing heterodox viewpoints in the classroom even though learning is supposed to be about openly exploring, investigating, and interrogating competing ideas.
The Progressive Professoriate
Earlier this year, Heterodox Academy’s Erin Shaw and Shiri Spitz Siddiqi performed a critical review of surveys and studies to investigate the political affiliations of faculty in higher education in the United States. Their work confirms that while statistics and percentages vary based on institution and discipline, in general left-leaning faculty are significantly overrepresented in academia. The researchers refer to FIRE’s large-scale 2024 survey, which found that at 55 private colleges and public flagship universities 62% of respondents identified as Democrats, a mere 13% as Republicans, and 24% as other.
Some fields of study had much higher ratios of Democratic-to-Republican faculty than others. For instance, there was a 42 to 1 Democrat-to-Republican ratio in the field of anthropology. Indeed, the report found that even in the more ostensibly objective STEM fields, there was a significant liberal leaning. In biology, for example, the ratio of Democrats to Republicans was 9 to 1.
All of this means that in many fields, conservative or even moderate viewpoints easily go unheard entirely or, at the very least, remain marginalized, while accepted viewpoints and narratives are unchallenged or prioritized. This inevitability carries over to the classroom, where faculty determine readings, unit topics, and lecture themes that advance these “acceptable” viewpoints. This limits students’ exposure to perspectives that may carry legitimacy more broadly but are unpopular in academia.
Indeed, the well-intentioned and understandably revered commitment to academic freedom means that professors can curate their curriculum carefully to reflect their ideological biases. Meanwhile, conservative students may abandon academic disciplines in which their views are mocked, minimalized, or just ignored, helping to perpetuate a vicious cycle that promotes a monoculture.
Some in higher education dismiss, downplay, or even deny that this indoctrination occurs. But a recent nationwide report by the National Association of Scholars (NAS) examining the general education requirements at 100 elite private and state institutions of higher education found that at most of these institutions progressive ideology is now an integral part of the curriculum.
In fact, over half of the universities in the NAS study included a progressive ideology requirement, most often under the umbrella of identity politics or a new version of civics rooted in the progressive political activism of the 1960s that supports the left’s plan to fundamentally transform America. The report also found that the vast majority of higher education institutions offer courses that use social justice, feminist, and gender studies frameworks in lieu of classical or traditional classes that focus on Western civilization.
A Progressive Assumption
Meanwhile, stroll around an average college campus in the United States, and what you will observe is the way literature, flyers, communications, and faculty offices will confirm the overwhelming progressive bias discussed here. An occasional posting about a college Republican group or conservative small group meeting will be dwarfed by dozens of postings, papers, and advertisements for the Young Democratic Socialists of America, environmental action coalitions, pro-Palestinian groups, and various other left-wing “resistance” movements.
Professors’ doors are often papered with such materials as well, leaving passersby and visitors with no doubt of their political affiliations. Having spent over two decades in higher education, I have become used to seeing mostly progressive messaging throughout hallways, in classrooms, and in break rooms.
In addition, there is a consensus in meetings, group chats, and water cooler conversations that assumes everyone at the university is on the same page politically. In a recent Heterodox STEM Substack titled “Five Rules for Conservative Faculty in a Liberal Academy,” James Shuls offers an example of what I’m talking about: “The day after Donald Trump’s surprising 2016 victory, I sat in a committee meeting. The chair began somberly: ‘I know we are all very upset about what happened yesterday…’ I, for one, was not. While not a fervent Trump supporter, that election brought Republican victories down the ticket in every major office in my state.”
These are not isolated incidents but regular occurrences in the workplace for those who work in academia. And this progressive monoculture is undergirded by everything from performative Indigenous land acknowledgement statements to pronouns in bios.
Norms and expectations like these shut down genuine opportunities for open inquiry and healthy, respectful debate. This affects all constituents of the university. Students wonder if their grades will be negatively affected if they express unpopular or conservative viewpoints. Faculty have legitimate concerns that they may compromise opportunities for promotion or tenure if they express heterodox views or engage in—or publish—research that doesn’t advance approved narratives. Faculty, staff, and students all wonder about reputational risk.
These concerns are not unfounded, and they have real impacts on the way students and faculty conduct themselves. In an article last year for The Hill, psychologists Forest Romm and Kevin Waldman discuss confidential interviews with 1,500 students at the University of Michigan and Northwestern University in which 88% of students admitted to pretending to hold more progressive views than they actually do. The study also shows that many faculty understand that a conservative viewpoint could hinder their opportunities to secure a job in academia or achieve tenure.
Other studies make the same point in different ways. For instance, in the largest survey ever conducted on the topic of faculty self-censorship, FIRE found that a mere 20% of faculty thought a conservative would be a good fit for their department. The FIRE study also found that three times as many conservative versus liberal faculty keep quiet about their political beliefs for fear of losing their jobs.
Finally, at many universities, DEI statements (which faculty and others are often required to write to show their commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion) are sometimes used as ideological litmus tests for hiring as well as advancing research in certain fields. In an examination of over 10,000 faculty job announcements from the 2024-2025 hiring cycle, a Heterodox Academy study found that nearly one-quarter (22.3%) of those ads requested DEI statements from their applicants. One example of such a requirement is a statement of commitment to “equity” in the classroom.
On most American campuses today there are real reputational, academic, and societal risks involved in sharing heterodox viewpoints in the classroom even though learning is supposed to be about openly exploring, investigating, and interrogating competing ideas.
Such statements force some applicants to craft a narrative that isn’t in line with their beliefs about how to help students succeed in the classroom. Though every good educator supports making mentoring and tutoring opportunities and other resources available to students who need them, not everyone agrees that all students will, or even should, end up in the same place. Furthermore, some faculty members report that in their role on search committees, they’ve seen incredibly competitive and deserving applicants dismissed due to DEI statements that are perceived as not being sufficiently enthusiastic.
So we are left with a preponderance of left-leaning faculty, the over-representation of progressive courses and curricula, and an environment that assumes and promotes progressive perspectives almost exclusively. The average citizen must weigh these realities alongside the high cost of attending (or sending one’s children to) university as well as the reality that many newly minted college graduates struggle to find meaningful employment. These factors and more have left higher education in a precarious place.
Where Do We Go From Here?
As we look to the future, we must acknowledge that there is much hard work to be done. For starters, we need a genuine commitment to viewpoint diversity from the top down and all across campus. Admittedly, this is no easy task, as many administrators and academics aren’t interested in giving a platform of any kind to certain views, even if a sizable share of their fellow citizens hold those views.
To see how daunting the challenge is, look no further than the recent example of the cancellation of CBS News president Bari Weiss’ talk originally scheduled for Feb. 27, 2026, at UCLA. Although Weiss herself ultimately decided to cancel the event, the decision was precipitated by security concerns resulting from an organized campaign to ‘deplatform’ her, as evidenced by a petition signed by nearly 11,000 faculty, students, and others in the campus community. In one notable case, a faculty member threatened to resign if Weiss’ lecture occurred.
Unfortunately, this example is not unique or even that rare. But honest, open, and difficult conversations cannot happen if people on campus are unwilling to even listen to certain voices.
Another positive step would be to better define terms. As George Orwell and others have taught us, those who control definitions control the conversation. To be intellectually responsible, we must take time to carefully craft shared definitions of terms used on our campuses for concepts such as civil discourse, viewpoint diversity, and open inquiry. Without a shared understanding of terminology, we cannot productively move forward.
Moving into the classroom, we must actively work to embed into course curricula diverse viewpoints, with the intention of discussing all of them in a fair manner. It’s perfectly acceptable, of course, to discuss why some viewpoints are not as popular as others or why some opinions are embraced in certain contexts for specific reasons, but unpopular or heterodox opinions should be discussed and considered honestly and openly.
This requires a diversification of the curriculum and reading lists. Students who graduate with a robust, wide-reaching knowledge of scholars in their field should know about such important figures as Thomas Sowell (economics), Jonathan Haidt (social psychology), Jordan Peterson (clinical psychology), and many others who currently are outside the intellectual mainstream on campus. If we are graduating students without a full range of exposure to scholars across the political spectrum, we are cheating them by severely limiting their intellectual development and educational experience.
Although it may be unpopular with many practicing academics, it also would behoove us to consider instituting some accountability measures. Of course we want to preserve academic freedom to the fullest extent possible, but we need to balance that with the assurance that our students are getting a comprehensive, diverse education that doesn’t overtly favor certain narratives.
In addition, we need a commitment to genuine—not simply performative—dialogue. Martha McCaughey’s article “Next Time, Try Dialogue” in the June 2026 issue of inquisitive discusses a recent practice on some campuses to pass along beach balls for students to draw or write on as a form of expression. Although framed as a way to safely express oneself, this practice has reportedly devolved into acts of incendiary performance, as students intentionally write or draw “political slogans, insults, and provocative symbols” to elicit shock and outrage.
Campuses must instead commit to doing everything they can to foster meaningful opportunities for dialogue. One example is Stanford University’s recent “Disagree with a Professor” event series (an idea that started as a student-led podcast at the University of Virginia), which invites students to actively contend with positions presented by professors by using precise, evidence-based arguments rather than just knee-jerk reactions. This format mitigates the power dynamic, as students are not being graded by the professor; as a result, it allows for a more open and honest exchange.
Another great option for faculty or staff is to start a Heterodox Campus chapter at their institution or, if possible, join an already established one. Administrators who are committed to civil dialogue should encourage and promote such practices, as well as make funds available for faculty or student leaders who wish to receive training.
There are other opportunities as well. For instance, Braver Angels brings people together to practice dialogue across differences; the Constructive Dialogue Institute takes a research-based approach to practicing civil discourse; and The Discussion Project works with campuses to create spaces where productive dialogue can occur.
Ultimately, if higher education is going to regain lost trust and thrive in these rapidly changing times, it will require, among other things, a genuine commitment to the principles of intellectual diversity and pluralism. When we openly share, debate, and defend positions on nuanced, complex topics, we leave the echo chamber that is prevalent on so many college campuses and instead engage in the type of learning that produces responsible, well-rounded citizens with dignity, character, and conviction.
I live in a rural area of North Carolina, basically South Carolina. Here, people are distrustful of education, certainly don't value it. Our school board members are elected based on culture issues --books and gender for examples. Meanwhile, teacher pay is at the bottom of the U.S., and vouchers are being used for shady charter and religious schools, and homeschooling. Having spent most of my life on the faculty of Ivies, I'd argue that "a new commitment to intellectual pluralism" should start here. Otherwise higher education has no pipeline of conservatives to draw from.