Every time I see interviews with college students and professors, they usually left-leaning and these colleges/universities usually are breeding grounds for liberal/leftist views. Why and how did this come about? If anything these colleges/universities shouldn’t plant any political views into their student’s heads, rather let them think for themselves.
Economic and fiscal conservatism are more common than social conservatism at colleges.
Social conservatism may be less common at residential because residential colleges tend to bring in people from various parts of the region, state, nation, or world, exposing both faculty and students to more diversity than they grew up with. Some areas of academic inquiry may also be “forbidden” subjects for some types of social conservatism (e.g. evolution, economics of prostitution, literature with may have sexual themes, critical study of religion and philosophy, study of other religions, reasons that some states seceded in 1861, etc.).
It is also the case that people of traditional college student age, whether or not going to college, tend to be less socially conservative than the general population.
Well, you’re assuming that these colleges are “planting” ideas into students’ heads and not letting them think for themselves. I think it’s a combination of factors - yes, students are heavily influenced by the views and perspectives of their professors, but they are also growing and changing and learning a lot outside of their classrooms. Their views and ideas aren’t 100% based upon what they learn from professors in class.
In part, it’s because young people tend to be more liberal, and most college students are younger (under 25).
As for why the faculty tend to be more liberal/progressive…well, I have a lot of feelings on that topic. One reason is because the faculty is already liberal, and they are more likely to hire scholars who think like them (for better or for worse). Another reason is that in a lot of fields, scholarship/research involves some espousal of liberal/progressive views. I’m a public health researcher and a socially conservative scholar would not survive very long in my field, simply because the science doesn’t line up with many of their beliefs. (I do wish there were more fiscally conservative scholars in the field though! It would be nice to hear solutions to problems that didn’t boil down to “throw government money at it.”)
Reality has a liberal bias 
(I keed, I keed–but the answers above are good ones, especially the social/fiscal divide.)
I agree with the others who feel students in college are simply at an age where they’re naturally more liberal and idealistic. There are some undisciplined, lefty professors who can’t keep their political views out of the classroom - and the far right loves to shine a spotlight on them to the point where some people think it’s the norm, but the reality is those kinds of professors are few and far between. I never felt like I was subjected to political indoctrination in college, and my kids didn’t seem to be subjected to it when they were in college.
I once took a fascinating and very worthwhile comparative politics class where we spent much of the semester studying communism. It involved explaining how communism got started, why it appealed to people, and why it was likely doomed. (This was in the late 70’s.) I suspect that many people who simply saw the title of class would have jumped to the conclusion that the college was training us to be commies.
Once students graduate from college, get jobs, and start paying taxes, most quickly become less idealistic, more realistic, and start moving toward the center.
Because of OPM.
Students take for granted just about everything, especially money. Once they get their first job and have to pay the tax man, the rent, the phone bill, the electric bill, the car loan, the car insurance, the gasoline, the water bill, the medical bills, the groceries, the plumber’s bill, etc, etc, etc, there tends to be less kumbaya.
Professors are resentful of their better paid contemporaries in the private sector. Professors also only pick their own kind. There’s both political bias in hiring & tenure and self selection.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/education/edl-24notebook-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
To the extent the premise is true, one possible explanation is that many “liberal” ideas tend to be more persuasive in open academic debate.
Example (science):
Liberals tend to believe that life on earth is very, very old; it descended from a common ancestor that lived several billion years ago. This theory of evolution has been found to be persuasive by scientists all over the world examining a wide variety of very different kinds of evidence. An alternate belief (that humans descended from two people created out of dust ~10,000 years ago), which is shared by many American conservatives, does not stand up to the same scientific scrutiny. Therefore, not too many American college professors will openly declare a belief in “Creation Science”, let along a belief in young earth creationism. When conservatives also repeatedly reject scientific evidence in areas affecting public policy and their own self-interest (for human-influenced global warming, the risks of cigarette smoking, the benefits of seat belts and airbags, etc.) it poisons the well for the rest of their belief system.
Example (the economy):
American liberals tend to believe the federal government should have an active hand in managing the national economy. When young intellectuals look around the world, where do they see the best examples of prosperous countries that are relatively successful in addressing systemic problems they care about, such as income inequality or unequal access to health care? They see them in liberal, Northern European social democracies. There seem to be few current or historical counter-examples of countries run on strictly laissez faire principles (low taxation, minimal government regulation) evolving into the kind of place where most affluent young intellectuals would love to live. Cayman Island tax shelters don’t count.
Example (history):
Conservatives tend to believe in “American Exceptionalism”; liberals tend to reject it (or, if they believe it at all, explain it very differently). The most conservative versions of this idea reflect religious ideas about America’s destiny, or emotional convictions about the moral superiority of the American system of government and way of life. Liberals can easily find, in the historical record, evidence for alternate explanations of America’s prosperity and global power. Liberal historians can recount how our ancestors came to a new continent rich in natural resources, stole land from the Native Americans, enslaved Africans, and pushed out the Spanish and French competition. It’s hard to deny all that … or to build a persuasive, alternate explanation (one emphasizing the moral superiority of our system, in the face of so much historic bad behavior.)
There are features of the American system that idealistic intellectuals do find very appealing, such as:
free, universal public K-12 education
universal suffrage
civil rights in housing, education, employment, and marriage
federal standards for safe food and drugs, clean air, clean water, safe cars, safe toys
national parks
Historic advancements in all these areas were championed by liberals. They generally were opposed by conservatives. Liberals wind up with far more bragging rights (in these areas anyway.)
Too much generalizing. There are conservatives everywhere and many colleges are interested in dialogue. It’s too limited to base this on what you see in some media reports. One could say you’re not applying critical thinking to assume all you’ve happened to hear is the way it all is.
In general, intelligent, informed, open-minded dissent is fine. The problem comes when one is only informed based on one or two sources…and insists his or her opinion is sufficient, disregards other scholarship, and closes doors.
Colleges aren’t necessarily “breeding grounds” for liberalism. Not like a pool of water breeds mosquitoes. The best are, however, supposed to foster an inquiring mind.
Or the society shifts, so that their once-leftist views become mainstream. For example, a generation ago, recognition of same-sex marriage was a radical idea that no one seriously thought would happen in the US. But now it has, with majority political support in much of the US. A few more generations ago, the ideas of racial equality and allowing interracial marriage were radical ideas.
<<<
…college students and professors, they usually left-leaning and these colleges/universities usually are breeding grounds for liberal/leftist views.
Because of OPM.
Students take for granted just about everything, especially money. Once they get their first job and have to pay the tax man, the rent, the phone bill, the electric bill, the car loan, the car insurance, the gasoline, the water bill, the medical bills, the groceries, the plumber’s bill, etc, etc, etc, there tends to be less kumbaya.
Professors are resentful of their better paid contemporaries in the private sector. Professors also only pick their own kind. There’s both political bias in hiring & tenure and self selection.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/education/edl-24notebook-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
[QUOTE=""]
[/QUOTE]
Absolutely true…
Once you start learning a little something beyond what was planted into your head at home or from a book or two, people start realizing there is more out there than just one thing.
Scientific, evidence-based inquiry and critical thinking are incompatible with right-wing dogma.
Also, as a child of two academicians, the idea that they are envious of private-sector corporate drones (of which I am one) is frankly laughable.
Btw, that link doesn’t say they’re resentful. But it does say, “Dr. Yancey’s research was a survey, not a field experiment, so it’s impossible to know how many of those academics who confessed to hypothetical bias would let it sway an actual decision. Perhaps they’d try to behave as impartially as the directors of graduate studies in Dr. Gross’s experiment.”
Remember, Yancey didn’t look at actual folks on hiring committees. But, “…more than a quarter of the sociologists said they would be swayed favorably toward a Democrat or an A.C.L.U. member and unfavorably toward a Republican.” That means more than roughly 70% claimed they wouldn’t. As for “About 40 percent said they would be less inclined to vote for hiring someone who belonged to the National Rifle Association or who was an evangelical,” how do these things come up in a grad school or job interview? It shouldn’t be stunning to see advice to stay on topic.
We’ve had threads on this before. Some people are convinced it’s all hopeless.
- Self-congratulatory elitism (often greatly reduced for students, due to the conclusion of OPM), combined with
- Professional academics living an entire lifetime within sheltered, highly unrealistic ivy covered walls, combined with
- Little accountability and/or real competition (profits, layoffs), especially within the humanities, combined with
- Arbitrary intellectual narrow mindedness (the SOLE appropriate or accurate analytical answer to issue X is concept A); many academics are open to all thoughts and ideas, but ONLY if they conform to "their" stereotypes and mindset, combined with
- Broad elitist arrogance (academics, journalists, celebrities, social justice advocates, leftist politicians, educators/trade-unionists, internationalists, etc.) all perceiving the world through a similar, narrow, mutually supportive prism, with little tollorance for other viewpoints.
In fairness, much the same critique could be accurately written concerning conservatively dominated institutions, however, the OP’s question focused "colleges and universities,"
Because young people tend to be more liberal.
But I don’t know about the professors…Maybe because they’ve been in “academia” their whole lives and have been surrounded by liberal views because of that.
Oh yes, because it’s a fact that liberals are incapable of intellectual dishonesty to advance a political agenda…
Interesting hypothesis not mentioned here: As many have agreed, colleges should and generally do promote open mindedness and critical thinking, which usually means questioning accepted ideas of previous generations, tending to be more conservative, thus producing a liberal environment. This would coincide with ucbalumnus societal shift idea, and why society will continue to become more liberal.
I do agree on the fiscal conservative hypothesis on not being exposed to as much personal experience with the theories, though I would argue that personal experience later in life overrides theories that could actually be best for the whole though not for the individual. As an individualist society we struggle to choose the option that benefits the whole, and being in the academic bubble can actually benefit economic theory in impartiality.
I think the young lean left because they are exploring ideas and feel they can change the world. Plus, their profs are challenging their assumptions.
If you don’t like that, there are plenty of rightwing-“safe” colleges if you want one, e.g. U Miami in Ohio, Robert Jones U, etc. If you go to them, you can feed at the trough of your choice without challenge.
Finally, there are plenty of conservatives who go to mainstream Unis and have lots of fun arguing - I was one of them, though I am of a more moderate variety than what conservatism has today become.
As a college professor, I find the complaint that professors are somehow indoctrinating students into left-wing beliefs rather laughable—not even because it’s false, but because even if it were true, given that we know that the US electorate has shifted rightward over the past several decades as the rate of college degree attainment has increased, why would right-wingers even want the professoriate to stop?
The election and re-election of President Obama certainly confirms your statement @dfbdfd: “we know the US electorate has shifted rightward over past several decades.” A true, meaningful electoral shift isn’t a transient, single election phenomenon. Perhaps 2016’s results will be instructive.