By: Luke Harmuth
Who has the monopoly on truth? Clearly it is the universities, who have been more and more advent on propping themselves up as the bastions of truth and legitimate ethical analysis. There is an elitist class of persons in academia who view themselves above the masses. They perpetuate the idea that the degree from a university is the way to knowledge, and they are the gatekeepers. You must pass them, and they are the ones who dictate morality, the only ones who can criticism it as well.
Ordinary people help them in this task. “Go to college, or else…” is spoken by many parents, college is where you go to get smart. Society also has instilled this into our collective psyche, the title of university student carries prestige.
So simultaneously while academia is becoming more secular, more exclusive, and is seen as the gateway of knowledge, who is to stop these secularists from determining what is right or wrong? After all, they are the pinnacle of wisdom. How do we know something is credible? It must come from a published journal, and peer reviewed (by those holding the same political, and thus ontological/metaphysical views as the writers). If not, then it is not considered credible. Combine this with the cancel culture and rise of the monopoly of one side of the political spectrum in the realms of psychology, sociology, philosophy, political science, and communications (where your journalists come out of), do not be surprised when in 10 years the institutions of the world will be so secularized that calling yourself apart of a religion will be blacklisting yourself (unless the religion adheres to the beliefs of the products of postmodern educators).
Don’t believe this? Take this excerpt from Mitchell Langbert’s review of the top ranked 51/66 liberal arts colleges in the U.S. in 2017:
“The political registration of full-time, Ph.D.-holding professors in top-tier liberal arts colleges is overwhelmingly Democratic. Indeed, faculty political affiliations at 39 percent of the colleges in my sample are Republican free—having zero Republicans.”
“Political homogeneity is problematic because it biases research and teaching and reduces academic credibility. In a recent book on social psychology, The Politics of Social Psychology edited by Jarret T. Crawford and Lee Jussim, Mark J. Brandt and Anna Katarina Spälti, show that because of left-wing bias, psychologists are far more likely to study the character and evolution of individuals on the Right than individuals on the Left.2 Inevitably affecting the quality of this research, though, George Yancey found that sociologists prefer not to work with fundamentalists, evangelicals, National Rifle Association members, and Republicans.3 Even though more Americans are conservative than liberal, academic psychologists’ biases cause them to believe that conservatism is deviant.” [italics added]
The ideal environment is where there is a 50/50 ratio and high levels of open dialog and where one side is not consistently shut down for reasons such as hate speech. (For deeper understanding of this, read “The Coddling of the American Mind” by Jonathan Haidt, a liberal who researches moral psychology and how group-think causes you to think you are more righteous than another faction and how that leads to the silencing of one political faction who does not agree with the prevailing attitudes of those that rule academia.)
This is NOT to say that if you are a republican professor you are inherently more virtuous than a democrat one. Nor vise-versa, but if your political faction is dominated by the subsection of personality types high in openness and generating new ideas, some of those ideas are good and some are not, even if intentions are good (they’re always good if you’re the one coming up with them), and just how you are not good at checking yourself, a political faction is not good at checking itself either. Shutting out the other one is a prideful thing to do. I tell republicans this as well.
The universities and the elites of academia who use their faculties only to reinforce their own beliefs are exactly who the pharisees were (for the pharisees set up their own schools of thought, gained popularity and followers in the same way professors do). The sophists, the antagonizers of Socrates were the same way, and just like them, the pride of academia, who are setting themselves up as the new gods of this world will have their reward as well.
“When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish. But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.” –Jacob