Yes, faculty lean left, but…

Two dozen studies on faculty political diversity also show sizable minorities of moderate and apolitical faculty.

As with many contested topics, the politics of the professoriate is something of a Rorschach test. Some look at academia and see a field overcrowded with aggressive left-wing ideologues. Others see a gentle leftward lean, innocuously explained by self-selection into academic life. Our latest report, How Politically Diverse Are University Faculty? attempts to make sense of the contentious claims over faculty political leanings so that we can collectively better understand the current state of play.

So, which is it? Are universities overrun with radical leftists, or are they simply characterized by a gentle blue hue?

We waded through two dozen studies published between 2012 and 2025 on faculty political leanings, most often indicated by self-reports and voter registration records. We considered their strengths, acknowledged their weaknesses, and attempted to reconcile a somewhat disparate body of work spanning hundreds of institutions and thousands of faculty. So what did we find?

Well, yes faculty do lean left. But how left, you may ask? Well — and this may shock you — it depends. Broadly speaking, faculty lean more left than the general American population, with the best estimates suggesting about 60% of faculty identify as left-leaning.

But this leftward tilt is especially pronounced in certain disciplines such as psychology and sociology, as well as at elite institutions. Conservatives make up a relatively small share of the professoriate overall — with estimates clustering around 12% — no matter where you look. And moderates, meanwhile, are often ignored altogether, despite constituting a healthy quarter of all faculty.

These findings don’t necessarily lend themselves to an easy quip or a soundbyte. But, as many HxA members know from experience, the dispassionate search for truth must resist the temptation of easy narratives.

Though the range of political views among faculty represents only one measure of viewpoint diversity, it is an important one for a number of reasons that relate to groupthink, self-censorship, and ideological conformity. Ideology likely influences research agendas and analytical decisions, potentially shaping the kinds of questions scholars ask and the interpretations that they favor.

This is not because scientists are academically unprincipled, but because, as emphasized by HxA Director of Research Dylan Selterman, scientists are people too. Political diversity may be one of many potential buffers against the kind of ideologically driven tendencies that, at least to some extent, are part of the human condition.

Importantly, we do not — and will not — suggest that there is an “ideal” distribution of political ideologies among faculty, either nationally or within specific institutions or disciplines. To extend the metaphor offered by HxA President John Tomasi that universities are like gardens: different gardens flourish under different conditions. An overly prescriptive approach to cultivation would lessen the distinct beauty of each garden. Similarly, universities have unique missions and identities that may naturally attract particular kinds of faculty and students — and that’s okay. The same could be said for academic disciplines, which may be more or less appealing to certain kinds of people for any number of reasons.

But intellectual homogeneity along any axis — whether political, religious, theoretical, or otherwise — poses risks to open inquiry. This is true for all institutions and disciplines whose highest purpose is the pursuit of knowledge, regardless of their unique identities or moral commitments. The remedy is not to pursue a predetermined ratio of Democrats to Republicans, but to foster a climate of inquiry that allows scholars to pursue truth.

Some may bemoan the decision to dedicate time, energy, and resources to exploring political diversity, a topic over which much ink has already been spilled, and arguably overshadows underexplored aspects of viewpoint diversity like religion or socioeconomic status. And certainly, controversies over faculty political views often provide ammo for culture war skirmishes, most of which do nothing to advance truth-seeking or knowledge-production.

But the more we know about the current state of viewpoint diversity on college campuses — including political viewpoints — the better equipped we are to strengthen climates of open inquiry and free expression.

Our report adds both clarity and nuance to the debate on faculty political diversity. At the same time, viewpoint diversity is a broader, richer topic than politics alone. Tomasi’s forthcoming edited volume Viewpoint Diversity: What It Is, Why We Need It, and How to Get It, co-edited with Bernard Schweizer, explores viewpoint diversity not just on the campus or at the academic conference, but within culture more broadly.

Our new report, How Politically Diverse Are University Faculty?, sheds light on many questions about professorial politics, but, in true research fashion, it also generates a new set of questions. For example, how tightly do political labels map onto epistemic tendencies like censoriousness, and has this relationship changed in recent years compared to decades past? How are political leanings distributed among PhD students, and what does this imply about the future of the academy? How do faculty actually feel about the role that political diversity plays in teaching and research?

We’ll soon be releasing a report that provides data on that last question. Stay connected with HxA to be among the first to see the findings.

---

The Heterodox Academy research team, including the authors of the report, will be hosting a webinar event on March 11 to discuss the report. Attendance is open exclusively to HxA members; membership is free and open to anyone working in higher education.

---