Trump’s False Right-Left Dichotomy in Education
Why elite universities don’t reflect the political right and why they shouldn’t.
Recently, Donald Trump and his allies have launched blistering attacks on elite universities, drawing predictable backlash. But even among his critics, a common refrain persists: doesn’t he have a point about the lack of conservative voices in academia?
This framing is not just misleading, it’s fundamentally flawed. The real divide on campus isn’t between the left and right. It’s between reason and irrationalism. And right now, the modern political right has too often aligned itself with the latter.
Media's Misguided Effort at Balance
The media plays a central role in shaping public expectations of what academic “balance” should look like. In the name of impartiality, many U.S. outlets platform both sides of a debate, even when one side has no evidentiary basis. Others, like Fox News, actively abandon facts and balance for ideology.
This leads the public to expect universities to reflect the same distorted symmetry. But higher education operates under a different standard: evidence-based inquiry. If a particular view has been thoroughly debunked—be it climate denial or vaccine misinformation—it has no business in a classroom, no matter how many voters support it.
Yet there are entire areas of academia, particularly in areas like climate science, that are naturally so heavily left-wing because the right have completely abandoned the reason on the issue. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and caused by human actions. The lack of climate skeptics among climate experts isn't because universities are politically biased, it's simply because scientific research supports this consensus. Over 97% of climate scientists agree on the reality of human-caused global warming. This isn't a result of politics but of careful, factual investigation.
Immigration economics is another good example. Research clearly shows immigrants have a positive impact on economies. A major report by the National Academy of Sciences shows that immigrants contribute significantly more to economic growth and innovation compared to the native-born population. Despite clear evidence, the right have again abandoned these kinds of views. Entire swathes of economics, anthropology, sociology and physical science appear left-wing as a result of the right abandoning sense. Asking universities to represent more balance in their faculties is like asking the Pope to represent more atheism.
When we add in the Trump administration’s further lurches from reason – in areas such as anti-vaccine conspiracies, anti-media ethics or moves to label judges as unconstitutional – we also lose the majority of entire health science, law and philosophy faculties. Universities strive to employ people who understand history and their subjects, and who strive to discover new progress in their areas. They are not likely to reflect the views of a set of politicians who not only go out of their way to abandon such ideas of progress, but also back the sections of the media who parrot this disinformation.
What About Rational Right-Wing Thought?
Rational disagreement does exist in academia. And where it does, it flourishes.
Take Steven Pinker, a world-renowned, best-selling author who also happens to be a Harvard psychologist often critical of extreme leftist narratives on free speech, race, or gender. Pinker’s views are widely published and respected not because they lean right, but because his arguments are grounded in data and reason, not dogma.
Or consider economics. University departments feature robust debates between libertarians and Keynesians, free marketeers and interventionists. These disagreements are welcomed as long as they’re grounded in evidence.
Trump regularly highlights gender identity because it's one area where mainstream left-wing positions in the US depart from broadly accepted rational views or common sense. In fact, Trump’s insistence on bringing the subject up at rallies and campaign events suggests he found it a useful weapon against his opponents.
However, it’s easy to see how the left have gotten swept away into irrationality on the Trans issue. I’ve written about the problems with the left and right’s position on this subject, yet the vile, vitriolic way Trump and his supporters treat the issue has me feeling a lot more protective of the left than the right on this issue.
On subjects genuinely open to debate, universities often host a range of viewpoints. Economics departments, for example, regularly feature both market-oriented economists and those advocating for more interventionist policies. Political science departments similarly host diverse views on governance, policy-making, and international relations, where evidence-based disagreements are common. Research confirms that humanities and social sciences faculties lean left, but why wouldn’t they?
These are areas of study that put solely focus on people. If a sociologist were to study low-income families and decide purely based on his study that it’s be better for people to be more unwell, and thus to cut Medicaid in favour of lower wealth taxes, we’d wonder what kind of sociologist he was. A politician might make this decision, with their split focus on people, economics and all kinds of other areas. But a sociologist should only be focusing on people. It would be like legal scholars advocating anarchism. It’s the right’s choice to favour these kinds of policies, and in making that choice, they stand against certain areas of study.
An Historic Problem in the US
Whilst this is not studied globally, the trend in the US has depressingly been set like this for a while. Research consistently shows that Democratic policymakers in the United States are more likely to rely on scientific evidence when crafting policies than their Republican counterparts. A comprehensive study by Northwestern University found Democratic-controlled congressional committees were nearly 1.8 times more likely to cite scientific research compared to Republican committees. Additionally, left-leaning think tanks reference scientific studies five times more frequently than right-leaning ones.
This difference becomes particularly clear on issues like climate change and public health. Republicans have increasingly adopted positions that contradict scientific consensus, notably rejecting regulations aimed at mitigating climate change and promoting vaccine hesitancy or unproven COVID-19 treatments during the first Trump administration. By contrast, Democratic leaders generally align with scientific recommendations, advocating for policies such as renewable energy initiatives, mask mandates, and robust vaccination programs.
Public opinion mirrors these trends, with surveys by Pew Research Center revealing Democrats generally trust scientists more and prefer science-driven policies, whereas Republicans show greater skepticism toward scientific input in policy debates.
Why Universities Must Defend Rational Thinking
Universities must remain centers for rational, evidence-based thinking. They shouldn't give a platform to, or hire people with, irrational ideas simply to appear politically balanced. Doing so would damage their credibility and undermine the fundamental purpose of education. It would also set societal innovation and progress back. Universities flourish by challenging all ideas rigorously but ultimately embracing what the evidence shows. Unfortunately, the political right is moving away from this.
The debate about ideological balance in universities has been widely misunderstood. The real divide isn't left versus right, it’s rational versus irrational thinking. Rational universities naturally reject irrational viewpoints, as their faculties are trained to do this. Whether those viewpoints sit best with the political left or right depends on the choices that politicians make and the policies they opt for. It shouldn’t be the other way round.
Trump and his allies’ critique of universities isn’t just wrong, it’s dangerous. It pressures institutions of learning to platform views that have failed the most basic tests of reason, evidence, and ethics.
The problem therefore isn’t a lack of conservatives in universities. It’s a lack of modern conservatism that can withstand serious scrutiny, which has been created by conservatives abandoning the benefits of science and academia for decades. The acceleration, which has led to attempting to defund universities, is no surprise, as it’s being led by a president that bans journalists who interrogate rather than flatter. This administration has taken fact-opposition to new levels.
Until the political-right changes, and the conservative movement begins embracing truth again, don’t blame the academy for choosing reason over rhetoric.