In a recent interview with New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, the conservative activist Christopher Rufo pivoted from his usual focus on the ideological biases of higher education—the prevalence of “critical race theory and gender ideology and liberatory pedagogy”—to remark on the broader restructuring of universities that has taken place in recent years. “Our universities are no longer liberal arts universities,” Rufo noted. “They are these mega complexes that have scientific arms, research arms and financial arms.” In contrast to this, he highlighted the “community of scholars and learners that have a shared commitment to a culture of civil debate” at New College of Florida, where he is a trustee.
Indeed, the conversion of universities into corporate juggernauts is closely connected to their drift into ideological extremism. Over the past two decades, metrics-driven leadership has transformed how universities operate. In the process, power has migrated from decentralized departments to an administrative apparatus that prioritizes enrollment growth, branding, and public impact over intellectual rigor.
These changes might sound politically neutral. Some of them might well appeal to conservatives. Shouldn’t colleges be run more like businesses? If “tenured radicals” are the source of left-wing ideological dominance on campus, why not subject them to higher standards of accountability? But in effect, these developments have played a key role in consolidating the progressive monoculture on campuses and contributed to the politicization of scholarship and teaching.
In eras past, when power was more decentralized, distinguished faculty voices of varied political persuasions might compete with the president from power bases inside the institution. Today, in contrast, politically active junior faculty see that attracting controversy can be a way to get ahead, while traditionally minded senior faculty who once acted as moderating forces in academic life have been sidelined as their departments and disciplines have been merged and dissolved in favor of new interdisciplinary programs. Today, the loudest faculty voices heard on campus are speaking from left-leaning interdisciplinary power bases (or affinity groups and multicultural centers) inside and outside the university. The moderate and traditional voices that once found a home in traditional departments have gone silent.
Addressing the hyper-politicization of academia must therefore start with a recognition that metrics-based centralized planning nurtured this tendency in the first place. While other factors played a role, the centralized university became an incubator for ideological extremism above all because its structural design makes students into customers and incentivizes faculty to seek visibility through controversy rather than through traditional scholarly achievement.