As one steps foot onto a college campus, inspiration and potential seem limitless. The future, in every sense of the word, lies behind every door. A mixing pot of culture, an array of perspectives, higher education is the market place of ideas. Unfortunately, the majority of these markets are missing half their inventory. One must question the validity of American colleges and universities in their efforts to develop young people to be free thinkers vice the political and social indoctrination of liberal beliefs on impressionable minds. A major issue plaguing young students across the nation today is social justice ideology masquerading in academia.
As I present the dire facts associated with this situation, I want to clearly state that the issue does not lie in the particular type of ideology but the bias it creates within our learning institutions. The direction that bias leaned would be irrelevant to the overall argument. It would even make this particular argument less prevalent if campuses were at least more diverse in their political preference. If one couldn’t find an institution that was politically neutral and unbiased, then they could at least decide which type of biased university they wanted to attend. It just so happens, that in America the majority, if not all, lean to the left.
When a campus is dominated by one particular social and political perspective, the learning environment becomes drastically skewed. A recent poll amongst more than 50 of the top ranked liberal arts colleges in America indicated that almost 40 percent of those surveyed did not have a single professor that identified as republican on their faculty (Langbert, 188). Not a single one. In the remaining colleges that were surveyed the democrat-to-republican ratio was so insignificant, the majority of colleges couldn’t muster up a single percent. Leaving nearly 80 percent to have not a single republican or so few as to not make a difference.
This can be attributed to a number of theories and reasons, ranging from the use of higher education as a deferment to the Vietnam war, to the introduction of academic subcategories where liberal ideology is the base of research. Regardless of reasoning, the implications remain the same and the primary issue. The consequences of an academic landslide in social orthodoxy is not confined to the walls of educational institutions. In a degree field like communications where ratios of democratic faculty overpower the right 180:1, shouldn’t leave one surprised that American-journalism and media has become a far-left enterprise. Aggression, intolerance, the suppression of speech, and even violence that are becoming common practices on our campuses will continue if we fail to provide an environment that doesn’t support diversity in thought. Liberal-students debating in social equality for their democratic professor is a dark tunnel of ideas that will never venture too far off path. It is simply a discussion to the degree of agreement. This system is failing our society, and why we will continue to see more instances where civil discourse of policy and social issues are no longer an option.
This semester, I personally had to drop myself from an environmental science class, here at the College of Southern Nevada, when a Professor’s first day remarks where, “If you’re a republican I am going to be harder on you because you’re consistently wrong and on the wrong side of science.” Not only is this completely unprofessional, political biased, and a blatant indicator of discriminatory grading practices, but I didn’t see a single young person bat an eye to his remarks. Leading me to believe that they see this type of classroom rhetoric as a common continuation from public schools or are too naïve to understand its true implications. The fact that you may or may not agree with the professor is irrelevant to his intolerant and biased speech on young and impressionable minds. A decade ago, I had a professor in a political science class state that if he had done his job correctly, by the end of the semester we [students] would have no idea what his political affiliation was. To this day, I haven’t the slightest idea. He challenged beliefs from both ends of the spectrum. He made students view issues with an unfiltered lens. He made young people think. That is professionalism, that is education, that is higher learning, that is a marketplace for ideas.