One talking point in the culture wars is that post-modern neo-Marxist college professors are indoctrinating the youth. Some take a more moderate view of college professors, simply regarding them as excessively liberal and indoctrinating the youth in liberal dogma. While I am confident that the academy is not ruled by Marxists, there are still interesting questions about the extent of Marxism on campuses, the degree to which liberals dominate the academy and whether professors indoctrinate their students.
It is true that there are professors who are avowed Marxists. I have even met some. In some cases, they do understand Marxism and its implications. These are, not surprisingly, usually political science or philosophy professors. I have also encountered professors who seem to think they are Marxists, but do not seem to understand what that means. For example, I met one professor who claimed to be a pure Marxist, but also rambled about free will and what seemed to be metaphysical dualism. Real Marxists are metaphysical materialists and embrace economic determinism. Fortunately, Marxists are relatively rare even in the social sciences and humanities. As such, the idea that the academy is ruled by Marxists is not true. This is not to deny that there are weird Marxist professors who preach rather than teach, but to point out that that they are very rare. I do, however, have considerable sympathy for students who get caught up in that nightmare.
It is true that professors tend to be politically liberal and it has been claimed they are becoming more liberal. From my own experiences interacting with faculty from across the United States, I do agree that professors tend to be liberal. I do suspect that the claim that they are becoming more liberal might be because the political right in America has headed further to the right. To use an analogy, the distance between two cars will change even if only one moves. In any case, let it be accepted as true that professors tend to be liberal.
That professors tend to be liberal is no more surprising than the military and business tending to have more conservatives. However, there is the reasonable concern that the academy that is supposed to educate people is dominated by the left rather than representing the ideological diversity of the country. Ironically, consistent conservatives would presumably oppose affirmative action or diversity initiatives aimed at recruiting more conservative faculty. However, they could still go out and earn terminal degrees or support other conservatives in doing so and thus help increase the number of conservatives in academics. It would be a positive thing to have more conservative intellectuals in the academy (and in general). After all, ideology without opposition in the academy leads to a multitude of sins, most especially intellectual laziness.
While the liberal domination of the academy is a matter of concern, there is also the question of whether these faculty strive to indoctrinate their students in leftist ideology. There is also the question as to whether if they try, they succeed. In my own case, I am careful to teach the class content without pushing my own ideology. For example, in my ethics class I do not try to convert the students to my own ethical theory—they get the tools of moral reasoning as well as information about a range of moral theories. But, of course, I am but one professor.
As would be expected, there are those who have researched the matter and argue that the academy does not indoctrinate students and that college does not make people more liberal. It could be contended that those making these claims are biased since they are liberal academics or liberals. This is a fair point: liberal professors and liberals defending the academy must be justly regarded as biased. This does not, however, entail that they are wrong or that their arguments are flawed—to think otherwise would be to fall victim to an ad hominem. This is because while bias provides grounds for suspicion, it does not disprove a claim. After all, the same sort of bad reasoning could be applied to the conservatives who claim that the academy indoctrinates students to be liberals—as conservatives, they would tend to be biased against liberals.
This question is an empirical one—researchers can comb through a representative sample of syllabi, PowerPoint slides, course notes, and recordings of lectures to find the relevant evidence for or against the claim of indoctrination. This research would need to meet the usual standards of a proper inductive generalization: the sample would need to be large enough and representative enough to provide strong support for the conclusion. Because of this, singular tales of crazed Marxist professors or professors who teach in a fair and balanced manner would not suffice as adequate evidence. Such appeals would be examples of anecdotal evidence, which is fallacious reasoning. This fallacy involves taking an anecdote as evidence for a general claim. Samples that are too small would result in the fallacy of hasty generalization and biased samples would result in the fallacy of biased generalization.
As would be expected, both conservatives and liberals can be tempted to use anecdotes, excessively small samples and biased samples to “support” their view. I am certainly open to the results of a properly conducted, large scale study of the academy—perhaps this is something that could be conducted by a bipartisan team of researchers. I am, of course, sure that there are some professors who do try to indoctrinate their students. This would be of concern, but the real worry would be if this occurred often enough to be a significant problem. One can use the analogy to how some make the point that while there are some bad police officers, this should not be taken as condemning the police in general. Likewise, for professors.
Even if it is found that a significant number of professors try to indoctrinate their students, there is also the question of whether they succeed. Having observed many professors across numerous institutions, I would say that we are generally not likely to indoctrinate our students. As the all too true joke goes, we have a difficult time getting them to do the readings, complete the work properly and show up to class. The idea that most professors can mold the youth into liberals with their diabolical temptations seems unlikely. This is not to say that professors have no influence at all nor to deny that there are not professors like Jordan Peterson who can sway the minds of the youth. But such charismatic corrupters are obviously quite rare—and would be more likely to pursue other, more lucrative careers.
It is worth noting that even if professors fail to indoctrinate their students, they are still wasting class time trying to preach rather than teach. This is a fair point—while off-topic discussions can be some of the best learning experiences in college, having a professor spending class time pushing their ideology rather than teaching is a disservice to the students. Of course, professors rambling about fishing stories, stamp collecting, or their favorite movies also wastes students’ time.
That said, it could be argued that professing does have a legitimate role in the classroom—if it has pedagogical value. Even if it does have some value, there is also the worry that by pushing a specific ideology, the professor will mislead the students about the merits or demerits of specific views. This all ties into the classic problem of the proper role of a professor—although the ideal often advanced today is that of a neutral conveyor of information and skills designed to prepare the job fillers for their existence as workers.
Mike, do you draw a distinction between progressives and liberals?
Sure; but the usage of those terms is muddled in the media.
Also, I’m curious what people think about “cultural marxism.”
I’m not sure what people mean by that term; although I do see it used quite often in Youtube videos about the death of the West.
Missed this. I take it you’re looking for what DH, CT, and (maybe) I think? To Mike’s credit he is right in that it is a loaded and fairly useless term, used by very weak thinkers to mean whatever they want it to mean at any time and in any context, just so long as it bashes Western Civilization, it’s values, and capitalism in general.
What I take it to mean is the undermining of Western Civilization and it’s culture of personal responsibility and the certain inalienable rights endowed by our Creator/Nature. The undermining of freedom with the siren’s call of safety and security through creeping slavery. YMMV.
Like most things, I don’t know if you can paint all of “Academia” with the same brush. There are tons of liberals (or progressives, depending on how you define the term) around here – but like so many people, they are all too willing to throw out everything they know about critical thinking and analysis to just join the crowd. There’s a lot of what I’d call “hate speech” here, but it’s not the kind of hate speech that gets all the media attention. It’s hate speech against Trump, against Republicans, and even against “old white guys” like me. Mostly it’s said with a wink, a nod, and a “say no more, say no more”.
Because of that, I’m hesitant to call them “Marxists” because I don’t think they give enough thought into politics to define themselves one way or another, philosophically.
I think that if you were to do a comprehensive survey, you’d get far different results from state schools vs. private schools, or from business or engineering schools vs. liberal arts, art, or design schools.
I do think it’s significant that the one college that outwardly proclaims itself to align with conservative values (Hillsdale College), also refuses to take any federal money whatsoever – “to maintain our independence in every regard”.
Hillsdale was not included in the recently released US Department of Education’s “College Scorecard”.
“Denise Horn, assistant press secretary for the USDE, is quoted saying that Hillsdale College was left off the list because it offers a majority of graduate certificates, not two- or four-year degrees.
In a press release, Hillsdale College says this is false, citing its issuance of four-year bachelor’s and master’s degrees and its non-issuance of certificates of any kind for academic credit.
Hillsdale College contends its exclusion from the scorecard is based on its refusal to accept federal funds and track and report the racial demographics of its students, the release said.
Only schools that participate in the Title IV federal financial aid program and the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, which requires institutions to track and report racial demographics, were included in the scorecard”
Reading between the lines, one might presume that there are strings attached to federal funding that is accepted by a large majority of colleges and universities – which may be responsible, at least in part, for certain political leanings.
About 18% of social scientist are Marxists.
https://www.econlib.org/archives/2015/03/the_prevalence_1.html
A comment on that link…
Deeper than 18%. Similarly from the OP there…
How important is the distinction between “Marxist” and “Radical” in terms of the overall left-right bias of colleges?
Another statement of the data in that table: 18% of Social Studies, and only 3% overall, identify specifically as Marxist, but 62% of Social Studies and 28% overall fit into the broader categories of the far left, as I understand the spectrum goes in the US, heavily influenced by Marxism and its decendants.
I read reports of crazy-talk in US colleges, but I assume those are largely clickbait manufactured to provide talking points. I have no idea what things are like on the ground. Reading a lot of US news from outside, people in Europe might reasonably be afraid to travel to America because of all the riots and natural disasters and mass-murderers.
My general impression is that large areas of Social Studies and Humanities are no-go areas even for centrists, but I expect that just like in my time most students are more interested in their social lives while not flunking their courses than any political theory.
most students are more interested in their social lives while not flunking their courses than any political theory.
Who gets more attention, and thus more chicks, the guy spouting idiocy about the social theory that everyone else is talking about, especially in the kinds of humanities classes that most young women working on their MRS degrees are taking, or the guy talking about thermodynamics or valance electrons?
Probably important to the radicals who loath Marxism. When I was an undergrad, I was an anarchist and thought that the Marxists got most of it wrong. I’ve set aside my anarchism as impractical, but still reject the core tenets of Marxism. But, Marx did add to the discussion of political theory. Also, if Marx had not existed, the capitalists would have had to invent him.
(1) When you write: “Fortunately, Marxists are relatively rare even in the social sciences and humanities,” you are, in fact, preaching your anti-Marxist views. (2) In the comment to which I’m responding, you state that you reject the core tenets of Marxism. You do realize that the core tenets of Marxism are purely economic/scientific, right? Do you mind sharing, in some format, which you object to and why? As an undergrad, all of Marxism was rejected in my phil. class as simply being “too idealistic,” in the sense that it was too dependent on human nature being different than what it is. I’m ticked and feel educationally neglected never to have been provided a scientific or strictly philosophical/logical rejection of the scientific principles of Marxism.
Marxism rests on metaphysical materialism and metaphysical determinism (presented as economic determinism).
I reject metaphysical materialism mostly on the basis of arguments I’ve stolen from philosophers such as Descartes and Leibniz.
As far as metaphysical determinism goes, my main objection is not much of an objection. It is that I reject metaphysical determinism in favor of metaphysical freedom. The rational thing to do is say we are free-if we are, then we are right. If not, then we could not say otherwise. So choose freedom if you can.
Without materialism and determinism, the philosophical core of Marxism falls apart.
I don’t think the idea of the end of the state is too idealistic; sufficient advances in technology and social changes might remove the need for the state as the servant of the ruling class. But, this is hardly inevitable-one can easily imagine a super-advanced society that could rid itself of such an oppressive state, yet does not do so. After all, we are an advanced society that could allow everyone to prosper, yet we collectively choose to maintain an oppressive system that greatly benefits the very, very few at the cost of the suffering, exploitation and unhappiness of the many.
Pardon my repetitive comment (under conscientiousgarden, which you can feel free to delete), as I couldn’t find that my above comment went through! Thank you for the thoughtful reply. So, just to clarify my understanding of Marx/Engels: materialism arises out of their economic principles rather than the other way around. As far as a super-advanced society – I would hardly call ours that! We keep the 99% sufficiently oppressed and undereducated and distracted with entertainment and politics such that they have not risen up. Well, some of them have tried – Wallstreet under Obama and the Yellow Vests in France… But why would the ruling class let that get anywhere?
Marx claims that the ruling class doesn’t get a choice-it will be overthrown.
We’ll have to wait to the future to see if he is right.
Some have faith that tech and science are forces that will shape politics and society (utopians) and others take the view that the rulers will be able to adapt them to serve their needs (dystopians). Rousseau has some of the earliest stuff on how tech and science are tools of oppression.
Stole this. Not saying from where so as to maintain my marxist street cred…because property is theft and stuff…
While I can only speak from my own experiences and my conversations with colleagues across the country, most of the crazy-news is clickbait. One can, of course, find clips and examples of wacky professors being wacky, but that is not typical. What you usually see is a professor trying to hold the interest of a class as they try to convey Boyle’s Law, validity, or the Pythagorean theorem to folks who would rather be chatting the snaps. I don’t know anyone who rants about trigger warnings, the greatness of Marxism or such things. Mostly we rant about budget cuts, committee meetings and grading.
Notice how Mike can bend over backwards to excuse the obvious leftist slant and BS while simultaneously sucking in STEM virtues to cover for the clown quarter (or more) of academia’s repeated failures. Yet the slightest deviation from what Mike perceives as a less than fair market and he’s all over that as a failure of free markets and capitalism, etc.
But that’s not what I came here to address. In my above I meant to add regarding this oft used, multi sourced quote which is really from CT’s post on the other thread but I’ll address here somewhat in context “Any man who is not a socialist at 20 has no heart. Any man who is still a socialist at 40 has no head”…
I would argue, and bear with me here as this isn’t as succinct and cute, many a man who is not a socialist at 20 may have a clear understanding of the world, his place in it, his potential, the world’s potential and such that he doesn’t have the weak, fearful attitude that many young people acquire, thanks to the failures of our education system, that makes them long for an extended Daddy-government to take care of him. A young man like one in Kipling’s If who understands that given the longer road in front of him, failures are just learning/stepping stones on the road to success if you simply persist in trying while being informed by your failures.
Most men who are still socialists at 40 are those who refuse to accept that they were wrong about their past choices and are looking for Daddy-government to save them from themselves with other people’s money. The rest are simply trust fund babies who never grew up.
When you write, “Fortunately, Marxists are relatively rare even in the social sciences and humanities,” aren’t you preaching your anti-Marxist views and isn’t that a bit hypocritical in light of this article’s content? Second, I’m all for someone defeating Marxism, if they can. Jordan Petersen can’t do that b/c he doesn’t know the theory. See, Marx and Engels wrote an economic theory which is very scientific and the only criticisms as an undergrad I ever heard were from philosophy professors along these lines, “Marxism is too idealistic since it relies too heavily on human nature to be something it’s not.” I have NEVER in all my adult life, including in grad school, actually read substantive criticism to the specific tenets of Marx/Engels’ theory. Please, tell me where I can find them, logically and scientifically taken apart!
Depends on what you mean by “preaching.” I don’t preach against Marxism when teaching, but I am glad that Marxists are rare in academics.