Why the Left Won the Universities: Part 1

An analysis of some characteristics of the modern university and why Academia is extremely susceptible to blinding Leftist Ideology.

Disclaimer: This is likely to be a very polarizing article focusing on issues that are pertinent to the Conservative Values and institutions (the the Universities) we care about and seek to preserve and conserve. Please take this in the spirit that it is intended, and know these are the views of the author and not reflecting of contributing guest or partners in Jay Cunningham’s Pen.

---

Intro:

It is no secret to anyone familiar with academia or who has gone through college in the last two decades that left-wing ideology and rampant liberalism are now commonplace. There is little to no diversity of thought even in small “Christian” universities. Conservatives are a vast minority in almost all university’s staff. But this begs the question which this article will focus upon: Why and how did the left win academia?

At first, during our college years, it seemed odd that so many of our professors would be liberals at our small Christian University; and not just any liberals, but the extremely left-wing or even radical liberals. It was strange because it seemed to promote the idea—at least to young adults—that further education brought about these kinds of views. After all, as it appeared to many of our friends in the university with us, they were all nearly completely leftist. So there must be something they possess that made them turn to that direction. And even though it is incorrect, many assumed that it was knowledge and education that directed them into this train of political thought.

Finding the Wrong Premise that Held us Back

We talked about this on and off for a while, and it did not seem to make any sense; however, one day it all seemed to click together. The mistake in our thinking—as it appeared to us as we discussed it—was that we were thinking education made these professors leftist of the radical variety. This was a false premise; the reason, as we see it and believe, is that they were a different type of person to start with. Their personality and individual characteristics were what drove them to that job, facilitated their conversion, and eventually caused them to fully embrace liberalistic left-wing political ideology.

What was this distinguishing factor? Emotionalism. There are many facets of a personality test that do not require the careful exactness of a test; but instead, one could easily observe them to be present in any person from simple observation. (For another example, introverted or extroverted people can normally be discerned by observation.) Logic and emotionalism are often something that can be understood by simple conversation. Sometimes it takes a few conversations, and sometimes, all one has to do is listen for a minute or two and then determine their orientation. When we did some personality tests, we saw that we scored very high on the logical side of the motivation aspect of the personality tests. Our friends, when taking the same exact test, scored completely opposite. They were as far on the emotional side as we could be on the logical side. They were, also, of a more left-leaning persuasion. There was a lot to be said for the relation of the two; this fact would soon connect our thoughts back to academia.

Many of our professors at our university (the one my wife and I attended) were leftist and very emotionally driven individuals. Oftentimes, they would speak so passionately and emotionally on a topic that they would burst into tears or be overcome by the sadness and cease to be able to carry on with their teaching. When they would get up in our assemblies, they would be incapable of finishing their assigned topics of address because they would be overcome by the hardness and ugliness of situations of which they were clearly ruminating. This is not to say they were weak or worthless people; they were just more emotionally concerned than we were. They were good people, but we realized that they were excessively emotional.

This got us to thinking, if they were more emotional and emotionally motivated, maybe that is the reason that they chose academia and the universities were more liberal because of this choice.

The PsyPost highlights this difference by comparing three separate studies:

The commonly endorsed stereotypes about the two political orientations also revolve around their attitude towards the importance of emotions. According to these stereotypes, liberals are seen as “bleeding-hearts,” emphasizing the importance of emotions, while conservatives are seen as cold, emphasizing a lower value assigned to emotions.¹

However, with this being said, the article also admitted a major fault: most of these students that were polled were women, inherently liberal, and taken only from universities and not trade schools or the early employed. Interestingly, the article also admitted that, “This comes in spite of the fact that more liberal participants reported less emotional well-being.”²

Part 1: Pragmatism and Emotionalism

While some think of things more emotionally, this does not mean that they cannot do logical thought; but instead, it shows that they are not as motivated by logic. Inversely, there is also a large group of people who would score higher on logic, yet this does not mean that they are infallible with their logic or that they cannot do emotions at all. Instead, this is just referencing their motivation acting behind their mental function. Many emotional people can see logic; many logical people can see emotion. This is not what is in question, but, instead, the main motivating force behind their choices and their structuring of their lives is what we are seeking to understand.

The Choice of a Profession

It is logical to prioritize one’s family. A pragmatic person would take this logical care for a family and devote themselves to the best way to bring about the greatest good (economically, philosophically, spiritually, or politically) for their family. Pragmatic choices of employment often reveal a logical person who does not necessarily value the emotional return or value of their work, or the praise and honor of a job. They are more willing to take hard jobs and inglorious ones. Farmers, linemen, electricians, constructors, auto-repairmen: none of these jobs bring with it any great prestige. And often, it is not a sign of a lack of intelligence, but a choice to be forthright, direct, and intentional in the devotion of time to a job or task.

On the other hand, many professors (which is a job I almost considered pursuing) knowingly devote years of their lives in pursuit of the emotional consequences of a diploma and cap and hood. They devote great amounts of borrowed money to pursue jobs that will barely pay off their debt before retirement. This is prioritizing idealistic knowledge over pragmatic income. These are not wrong or right choices; both are great and necessary for society; however, the motivation behind the choices can sometimes help one understand a proclivity towards emotional rewards and physical or financial rewards. These are principles of observation, not rules for all cases and persons.

Knowledge and Wisdom:

Wisdom is knowledge applied, or it can be known as practical knowledge for life. The Book of Proverbs says, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is the beginning of insight” (Prov. 9:10, ESV). What insight could be referenced here besides practical insight? This, of course, is not thinking of chemistry or biology (though sometimes it could be practical); it is not heralding counseling as the premier study; or, for example, it does not think that the promotion of a historical perspective is paramount to the whole existence of humanity. These are all valuable pursuits; however, there is something that is arguably, more important: the knowledge of God, your telos, or your reason for existing—this is paramount.

Academic studies are great, and they serve a great function in society. However, these have a greater brother that must be studied (at least a Christian) alongside them. I believe, in part, that universities are so liberal because of the type of people that flock to them and the blatant and pronounced disconnect from practical or simple life.

Many millionaires, though there are more than ever before, are leaning fast to the right. Why? Maybe you do not see it as so; for this could be different in different parts of the world. However, in “my neck of the woods,” there are two types of growing “Natural Aristocrats” — self-made and inherited. Most of those who inherit money appear (and this is just a personal observation) to lean heavily to the Left. On the other hand, those who had jobs and made their own wealth lean heavily to the Right. Why? I would suggest to you that it is pragmatism, practicalism, and social realism that come from a working understanding grounded in general society—the working class, blue-collar society that makes up the realistic majority.

ENDNOTES:

1. Hedrih, Vladimir. “Liberals View Emotions as a Feature of Rationality, While Conservatives View It as a Bug, Study Finds.” PsyPost, 5 Feb. 2023, www.psypost.org/liberals-view-emotions-as-a-feature-of-rationality-while-conservatives-view-it-as-a-bug-study-finds/.

2. Same as above.