OPINION:
American research universities, long celebrated as bastions of free inquiry and intellectual exploration, are facing an accelerating crisis: the decline of intellectual diversity, particularly among faculty.
While the leftward lurch of academia has been well documented in recent decades, the consequences of this ideological homogeneity extend far beyond mere political representation. This shift has profoundly influenced the core of the university’s mission — the pursuit of truth, the free exchange of ideas, and the rigorous examination of diverse perspectives — ultimately undermining its ability to generate new knowledge, foster critical thinking, and prepare students for the real world.
Furthermore, this ideological conformity within academia, mirroring Thomas Kuhn’s concept of “normal science,” has created an environment where certain questions are deemed “settled,” effectively shutting down debate and stifling innovation.
The concept of “settled questions” is seductive in its simplicity.
It suggests that certain issues, having been thoroughly investigated and definitively answered, no longer require further scrutiny. In theory, this allows researchers to focus on exploring new frontiers and solving unsolved puzzles, maximizing efficiency and accelerating progress.
This approach, however, ignores a fundamental truth about the nature of knowledge: It is always provisional, subject to revision, and dependent on the frameworks and assumptions that shape our inquiries. As Karl Popper argued, scientific knowledge is built not on certainty but on conjecture and refutation, a continuous testing and revision process that requires a willingness to challenge ideas and embrace uncertainty.
The problem arises when the designation of a question as “settled” is driven not by a genuine consensus based on overwhelming evidence but by ideological conformity and a reluctance to challenge prevailing orthodoxies. In the context of the current ideological monoculture of academia, certain viewpoints, particularly those aligned with progressive ideology, are often treated as self-evident truths.
At the same time, alternative perspectives are dismissed as outdated, misguided or dangerous. This creates a climate where certain questions are deemed taboo, not because they have been definitively answered, but because they challenge the prevailing consensus and threaten the intellectual and moral authority of the dominant group.
This silencing of dissent operates through two primary mechanisms: the designation of certain questions as “settled,” implying that further inquiry is futile, and the labeling of other questions as “taboo,” suggesting that they are dangerous or inappropriate to ask. Both approaches stifle intellectual exploration and limit the scope of inquiry, but they do so in different ways.
“Settled questions” create a sense of futility, discouraging researchers from investing time and resources in investigating something that is perceived as already answered. This aligns with Kuhn’s observation that scientists working within a paradigm often resist exploring anomalies or alternative explanations that might challenge the dominant framework.
“Taboo questions,” on the other hand, create a sense of fear, discouraging inquiry by suggesting that asking these questions could lead to social ostracism, professional repercussions, or even legal action.
Ideology plays a decisive role in shaping the designation of certain questions as “settled.”
In academia, the dominant ideology, progressive or left-wing, emphasizes the importance of social justice, equity and inclusion. While commendable in its aims, this ideology also leads to a narrow and dogmatic approach to certain questions, particularly those related to social and political issues.
The prevailing view within academia, heavily influenced by the ideology of equalitarianism, for example, is that any observed disparities in outcomes, such as academic achievement, income, or incarceration rates, are solely the result of social and environmental factors, such as discrimination, prejudice and unequal environments. While aiming to address historical injustices and promote social equality, this perspective commonly leads to dismissing alternative explanations, such as those considering the potential role of genetic or cultural factors or cumulative individual choices in shaping group differences.
With its set of unquestioned assumptions and values, this dominant ideology functions as a “paradigm” in its own right, shaping the research agenda, defining acceptable methods, and determining the criteria for evaluating scholarship. The belief that systemic racism is the sole explanation for racial disparities in outcomes, for example, is often treated as a settled question in academia despite the lack of conclusive evidence and the existence of alternative explanations.
Similarly, the assertion that gender is a social construct with no biological basis or the belief that capitalism is inherently exploitative and unsustainable are often treated as axiomatic truths within academic circles, stifling debate and discouraging research that would challenge these assumptions.
Until our universities address the lack of viewpoint diversity, the societal value of the research they produce will continue to be called into question. Since much of academic research is funded by taxpayers, we should all be concerned.
• Allan C. Stam is a distinguished university professor of politics and public policy.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.