How the Left Is Taking Over Campus
According to a recent piece by William Anderson of The Mises Institute, the trend of left‑leaning faculty, students, and administrators sweeping U.S. higher education is no mistake—it’s a hard‑to‑ignore reality.
What’s Really Happening?
- Faculty hire shifts: More professors are aligning with progressive agendas, reshaping curricula and classroom conversations.
- Student activism: A growing number of students champion causes that echo leftist ideals, driving campus culture toward progressive politics.
- Administration moves: University leaders are increasingly favoring policies that support diversity, equity, and inclusion, aligning with leftist goals.
Historical Context
Over the past decade, colleges and universities have seen a dramatic transformation. The shift isn’t a recent invention—it’s part of a longer trend that started over the last 50 years, when institutions began to lean more toward liberal social values.
The Bottom Line
While critics from the right call it a “capture,” the evidence shows that leftist politics have systematically reshaped academia. Whether that’s good, bad, or somewhere in between, it’s clearly a story worth paying attention to.
Where Did It All Go Wrong?
When you think of the last 50 years of college life, you’ll probably remember a castle of “liberal” professors—yes, that’s a term that used to mean the same thing as “combos of chess, economics, and a splash of optimism.” Most of those teachers, blessing the Democratic Party, were known for their scholarly passions, not for a courtroom drama with a political score. In fact, most of my professors at the University of Tennessee fumbled their own cross‑overs, keeping the syllabus strictly academic, even while the world around us was drowning in Watergate.
Politics: Between the Lines, Not the Notes
- Graduate the 1970s as a journalism major, among the only “leaning” class, yet no lecture ever smelled of merchandised ideology.
- Most teachers carried a democratic mindset but hardly bent to influence a student’s personal political heart.
- The campus language had a little makeover: freshmen became “freshpersons,” for chair transformed into “chairperson.” A little cultural sleight‑of‑hand that nobody thought vocally harmful.
Shift the Conversation—And the Curriculum
Fast‑forward to the last decade: the academic playground exploded with a rain of leftist thought that seared every major like a flame. The infection is so prolific now that it’s almost impossible to find every area immune to the coral bleaching of ideological indoctrination. Even if a new generation were to reverse the trend, it will still take decades before the effects are felt have vanished.
One Thing Blasts the Past:
While we previously believed professors kept doctrines murky, this isn’t entirely accurate. The buzz has spiraled into an unstoppable disaster where our academic experience is essentially politicized, and you can almost see a campus expo advertising “Scholarly Integrity.”
To wrap it up: The college sphere, once a place of intellectual rigor, is now running wide open to political narratives. Leaving your superstitious teenage sophomore’s imagination, it’s almost impossible to find any major wise enough to nuance or tame.
Alleged Racism in Mathematics
Math, or the Great Equalizer? (And the Not-So-Equal Results)
Do you remember the first time you tried to solve a derivative or run a quick regression in a spreadsheet? If you’ve gone through a few tiers of calculus or some high‑school statistics, you probably felt that maths was neutral—just numbers, y’all. But apparently, the academic world has discovered a darker side: math might be a little racist.
Where’s the Bias Coming From?
Most critics point to the history of blackboards and textbooks, focusing on who actually shaped the syllabus. The main gripe? Racial minorities often score lower on standardized math tests. That tells us the way math is taught could be biased or even outright racist.
Enter the Politics of Education
- Left‑wing influence in colleges & school boards has paved the way for a new curriculum.
- Seattle, for instance, is pushing a math program that will confront students with the fact that “Western Math” was historically a tool of power.
- Students will learn: Western Math can reinforce oppression, strip opportunities, and deny people of color the knowledge they’ve earned.
A Bold Experiment
According to the Seattle plan, the math curriculum will challenge the assumption that numbers are neutral. It’ll ask: Do the methods we use actually limit economic or social mobility for folks already on the wrong side of the scale? Not just a math class; it’s a philosophical awakening.
Should We Embrace or Reject It?
Some say it’s a great step toward equity, while others are scratching their heads. Either way, the conversation is growing louder. The takeaway? Math is no longer just about squares and curves; it’s a social tool, too.
The Left Declares that Science, Too, Is Racist
Science Rebooted: Is It All About Bias and Misplaced Pride?
Imagine you’re walking through a corridor full of textbooks and you hit a wall of old, dusty ideas that feel like they were built by a very selective group of people. That’s the vibe many are getting when they read recent headlines claiming that science itself may be steeped in racism.
The “Math is Racist” Spark
It all starts with a provocative claim: mathematics appears to be racist because its equations have historically been used to justify prejudice. Fast forward to the modern era, and the conversation jumps: “If math’s got this problem, science—naturally a sibling—must have it too.”
From Eugenics to Modern Bias
In the 20th century, some progressives lobbied to brand science as the ally of eugenics. That was a revelation of pseudo-science masquerading as “progress.” Yet the movement that fought against these pseudo-sciences still clings to the same progressive narrative, oblivious to its own irony.
Nature’s Bold Editorial
Late last year, the scientific journal Nature put its foot down and called science a “colonialist” and, thus, racist institution. Here’s what the editorial said:
- “We recognize that Nature is one of the white institutions that is responsible for bias in research and scholarship.”
- “The enterprise of science has been—and remains—complicit in systemic racism. It must strive harder to correct those injustices and amplify marginalized voices.”
That was a call to action, not a smear campaign. The intent? Push scientists out of their comfy offices and into a world that’s representative and diverse.
What Did They Really Want?
We’re not dealing with a call to abandon all scientific findings. The editors were saying that: when the people doing the research are biased, the conclusions get skewed. The real message is that the science community must open its doors wider and turn its focus to more voices in the field.
Smithsonian’s Take
Gold standard Smithsonian adds another layer to the debate. They’re claiming that even everyday concepts—being on time, working hard, and thinking ahead—have the same colonial roots. Even the scientific method’s pillars—linear thinking and cause-and-effects—carry hidden prejudices.
It sounds like something out of a sci‑fi dystopia, but the point is simple: science can’t separate itself from its creators’ biases.
Why This Matters
- We want to keep chasing the half‑truth about the universe.
- But we also want the science building to be populated by all the minds in the world—not just a handful.
- That means welcoming fresh perspectives, rethinking foundational assumptions, and openly acknowledging past flaws.
So, next time you see “race” pop up in a science headline, ask yourself: is it a warning or a rallying cry? The key takeaway? Justice, diversity, and genuine progress aren’t just nice‑to‑have; they are essential foundations for any discovery that hopes to keep our world moving forward.
How Did It Come to This?
Academic Academia’s “Shadow” — A Rough‑and‑Real Look
Only a bit‑of‑the‑sci‑junkie vibe or a campus dean who loves golden‑rules can truly own the claim that “cause‑and‑effect thinking” is a racism‑red flag and that a person’s gender is a random “birth tag”. I’ve chased the drama of the infamous Duke Lacrosse affair, saw how a handful of faculty swayed the narrative, and realized the same nonsense permeates universities worldwide.
From Duke to the Broader Picture
- During the “Duke Lacrosse” uproar, a professor named Karla Holloway implied that the accused players’ guilt was irrelevant—just “racism” or politics mattered.
- Consequent backlash made the whole situation feel like a social construction fest—all truth stripped away.
- Seeing this, I started pulling back on what “evidence” really means in academic circles.
How We “Lost” the Search for Truth
The story goes back to the 1930s when Italian communist Antonio Gramsci observed that the Western academia, especially Christian institutions, wouldn’t let a violent revolution start like it did in Russia.
Gramsci said we needed a “war of position” instead of a war of movement—this means infiltrating those pillars of civilization, not swinging swords.
- Think about churches, charities, media, schools and such.
- Goal: turn them into grounds for spreading the new ideology.
As the 1970s rolled in, universities began launching “women’s studies” programs. It was a make‑over of the old disciplines (English, History, Economics) into what people later dubbed “identity studies.” Those new departments turned into breeding grounds for radical faculty, many of whom had weak publication credentials but who still Shaped a campus agenda geared hard‑to‑speak political narratives.
Scholars vs. Schemers
Above all, the “scholars”—those who love the true grit of research, teaching, and service—contrast sharply with “schemers” who wield committee powers to push syllabi that scream “anti‑racism” or “preferred pronouns.”
- Scholars come for knowledge; they write white‑board lessons and carry out scientific talks.
- Schemers want every lecture to be a platform for activism—assignments, grading, all set to a propaganda beat.
At one of my former schools, the English department declared that marking a grammar error in a Black student’s essay was “racist” because it allegedly reinforced a racist structure. This wasn’t about easing the student’s workload; it was saying that English itself is a tool of bigotry.
When faculty tried to voice dissent, they quickly got social‑justice mobs on social media. Take the Duke incident: professors who spoke against the pre‑judgment rush were met with angry crowds calling them backstabbers.
The Future of Higher Education
Either way, the undercurrent is clear: Scholars are fading, Schemers are rising, and the academic lattice is turning into a political playground. If this trend ends up, we might end up with only a handful of true scholars in the U.S. universities—plenty of stories, few facts.
It’s time the campus cafeteria stopped ranting about “social constructs” and starts serving up the actual facts.
ADVERTISEMENT
