A visit to Western universities today will reveal a high level of group-thought in many faculties, in which a conservative thinker would barely have insight.
One can only conclude that over the years universities have limited their recruitment to three types of candidates: left-wing liberals, socialists and radical greens.
One consequence of such heterogeneous placement practices is that faculties are now characterized by closed-shop, progressive-leaning consensus.
It is no surprise that the courses taught and the research published reflect this consensus. As a result, universities are not places where students can go in search of diversity of opinion, debate, or education that prepares them for the real world—where opposing views regularly clash.
So how did our universities become, as one professor recently described, “social justice factories.”
A book by the American philosopher Thomas Kuhn gives us some insight.
Kuhns, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, explores the notion of “paradigm shift”, which explores how paradigms – the basic concepts and frames of reference underlying one discipline – can be changed and replaced by another. .
Importantly, paradigms guide the questions that academics are allowed to ask. And in turn, the questions asked will generate a particular type of answer.
Effectively, once a new “understanding of the world” (or paradigm) has gained dominance within an academic community, the “previous understanding” is sometimes systematically pushed.
Those outside universities can see that a change has taken place and wonder how the progressive paradigm took off. Meanwhile, people inside universities witnessed a paradigm shift step by step.
In the last few years the Fabian style was built up in university committees at a slow pace. However, after a majority of progressives on committees including peer-review systems, academic journals and publishers eased the process of removing alternative paradigms.
Most of those who pushed alternative ideas out of their faculties did not consciously see themselves doing so. Instead, a bubble of progressive group thought emerged simply because hiring like-minded allies seemed “natural”.
After all, since it was “comfortable” to live in a bubble where everyone’s worldview was broadly similar, why not recruit people who think like you?
Still, there was no need to purge conservatives anyway because their subsequent “intellectual isolation” (not like-minded people to speak of) meant that most themselves were removed over time, whereas The people living were only marginalised.
Selection committees can be put in place to the point that non-progressive people will be denied real decision-making roles (by colleagues who viewed them as “unhealthy”). Conservatives may lack resources (progressives are dominated by peer-review processes).
In the end, committees dominated by progressives meant that conservatives had no chance to influence policy.
But a big change happened when Donald Trump became the US President.
The mood of the campuses had become more aggressive.
On a campus in distant Australia, I noticed a change in mood from disbelief, shock, fear and finally anger.
A few days after the initial setback, what unfolded were war-talks. Trump’s Election Galvanized University Progressives.
He saw Trump as an existential threat because academics instinctively felt he was part of the “swamp”.
They knew that they contributed to training those in the “swamp”, that they depended on government funding for their jobs, and that their career paths often included moving between the university sector and government jobs. .
Even in distant Australia, Trump threatens his world as severely as any POTUS sets the tone for policy across the Western world.
So progressive academics naturally became anti-Trump. They closed ranks and viewed their universities as protected bastions.
But defensiveness soon developed into the sight of universities from which to mobilize war against Trump (and other right-wingers).
This attitude was transferred to Australia by a wave of American academics who deemed themselves “refugees from Trump”.
From then on, the process was “progressive” to ensure that faculty became more aware.
Academics became less tolerant of other ideas and more “missionary” in their approach. A push for greater diversity emerged… which effectively leaned toward hiring more progressive people.
One campaign saw academics rallied against the creation of the Ramsey Center for Western Civilization.
But curiously, when one speaks with and listens to progressives, despite opposition to “right-wing” or conservative viewpoints, it becomes clear that their approach is effectively the creation of myths about “right-wing” . “Supposedly stands for.
And because of decades of paradigm shift, we now have an entire generation of academics who have never effectively heard an academic argument in favor of conservatives, rightists, conservatives or nationalists.
Therefore, they do not know what these terms mean. Unsurprisingly, the void created by this ignorance has been filled with negative myths such as racism, authoritarianism, fascism, white supremacism, traditionalism, colonialism, and so on.
These mythologies about conservatives are enough to scare anyone.
So astonishingly, progressive academics have positioned themselves in a “just,” widespread struggle alongside progressive politicians, journalists and activists to push back and defeat opposing viewpoints. Meanwhile, real diversity of opinion dried up in the face of such constraints.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
This News Originally From – The Epoch Times