How Did Universities Become Woke Madrassas?
Matthew Goodwin, Professor of Politics at Kent University, has written a terrific piece for UnHerd about the HEPI poll of university students that I wrote about in the Spectator this week. After documenting the lurch towards intolerance in British universities – as evidenced by the poll – Goodwin offers a three-part explanation for why this has happened.
First, it reflects a shift in attitudes between generations arising from their different coming-of-age experiences.
Millennials and Gen-Xers came-of-age in the Eighties and the Nineties, sandwiched between Thatcher and Blair. Politics was turbulent but also more stable. People were generally committed to the two main parties. The agenda was more economic than cultural. And there was still a diverse range of voices in politics, media, creative, and cultural institutions, which helped to ensure that people were exposed to alternative views. The growing education-based polarisation between graduates and non-graduates had not yet intensified. And the far more liberal graduate class had not yet taken over the institutions.
Zoomers, in sharp contrast, have grown up in a completely different world. They were 13 when the Trump and Brexit revolts erupted and they spent their adolescence living amid what political scientists call “affective polarisation” — a far more divisive, volatile, and emotion-led politics in which Remainers and Leavers, liberals and conservatives, have simultaneously became more positive about their own tribe and more openly hostile toward the opposing side.
Aside from being the first generation to witness a strong populist Right (UKIP) and a strong populist Left (Corbyn), they have been raised by parents who have more openly taken sides in this more polarised environment — symbolised by the 36% of Remain-voting parents who would “feel upset” if their child married a Brexiteer, and the 21% of Brexit-voting parents who would feel similarly if their child were to marry a Remainer.
Given this polarisation is underpinned by the growing educational divide between more culturally liberal graduates and more conservative non-graduates, it is perhaps unsurprising to find that the university students who are self-selecting into universities have also become more focused on prioritising the needs of their own tribe and more willing to ostracise others.
Second, Zoomers are the first generation to be immersed in what the sociologists Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning call the Culture of Victimhood.
Unlike moral cultures in the past, which stressed dignity and honour, and put an emphasis on toleration and negotiation as a route out of conflict, victimhood culture encourages students to stress their oppression, marginalisation, and victimhood as a means of acquiring status from their peers; while simultaneously turning to third parties (i.e., university administrators) to punish those who are seen to be “oppressing” or merely challenging their safety and beliefs.
This is reflected in the finding this week that 64% of students now think that universities should “consult special interest groups (i.e. religious or gender societies) about on-campus events”, up from only 40% in 2016. And in the finding that 61% of students now think that main job of the university is to ensure that all students are protected from discrimination rather than allow unlimited free speech, up from only 37% in 2016.
The rise of this victimhood culture is also, almost certainly, being encouraged by the broader ideological evolution of Britain’s universities. As my research, and that of others, has shown over the past four years, these are morphing into “ideological monocultures” where the ratio of Left-wing to Right-wing academics has increased from three to one in the Sixties to around eight to one today. Much like institutions in America, it is increasingly hard to find visible conservatives or other nonconformists on campus. Some students will now go through their entire degree never really knowing one at all.
One basic problem with monocultures is they embolden the most radical activists to lash out against others, safe in the knowledge that the moderates won’t challenge them. In turn, significant numbers of academics openly admit to being biased against conservatives, including one in three who would not hire a known Brexit supporter. Most conservative and gender critical scholars say they are self-censoring on campus, as do one-quarter of all university students, while those on the right or who do not subscribe to the new orthodoxy on campus are especially likely to do so, underlining the impact of this new moral culture.
Nor is this lost on students themselves. While prominent academics sit on Twitter arguing that the crisis unfolding in our universities represents a moral panic being whipped up by Right-wing campaigners, the students who are actually sitting in their seminars and lectures are increasingly taking the opposite view — the latest report finds that 38% of students think “universities are becoming less tolerant of a wide range of viewpoints”, up from 24% in 2016.
Third, organisational changes in universities have meant students-as-customers have become more empowered, with ‘student satisfaction’ being the all-important metric by which universities judge themselves.
Conservatives are as much to blame as the Left. By focusing relentlessly on the marketisation of universities, by talking about students as consumers, we have created a climate in which the demands of students, not academics, increasingly shape our intellectual culture. Almost all the changes that are being imposed on higher education for largely political reasons — the decolonisation of reading lists, the imposition of ideological litmus tests such as “diversity statements” when applying for jobs or grants, decisions regarding who speaks and works on campus and who does not, and the transformation of universities more generally into hyper-political organisations — are now often made in the name of “student satisfaction”. This is further encouraged by the rampant spread of university bureaucracy, in which cowardly administrators — none of whom really understand the point of academe — routinely bend over backwards to ensure that student-led demands to have events removed, academics investigated, and new restrictive policies implemented are fully met and satisfied.
This is a really excellent analysis by Professor Goodwin (a member of the Free Speech Union’s Advisory Council) and very much worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
If kids are snowflakes by the time they reach university, then its because of their childhood.
And where do children spend most of their childhood? In schools.
Decades of ever expanding health and safety policies, PSHE curricula that are stuffed with woke propaganda, a general culture of not allowing anything bad to happen to any child ever or someone somewhere has done something wrong.
Schools are the real woke madrassas. By the time they get to uni, all the damage is done.
I think that’s a pretty inconsequential article which is mostly whining about the yoof of today, a real classic of human society which has been with us since at least the 18th century. It is, however, established wisdom that the yoof mostly becomes what people are trying to make of it. And that would be mainly professional yoof handlers in daycare, school and university. A half-sentence I remember from somewhere is that such-and-such a thing would be very much off-putting to history teachers keen on teaching pupils that all historical sources are subjective, or, put into other words, keen on teaching pupils that there is no such thing as history as science of past events. This rhymes nicely with another, completely idiotic statement by such a present-day (or not that present-day) historian, namely, (paraphrase) Just that we have no other source for this as Thucydides doesn’t mean that we have to accept his interpretation of the events. But Thucydides didn’t interpret events, he recorded them as accurately as he could. That’s the job of a historian. Interpreting history would be the task of a philosopher. Moreover, if we have no other source of information about something, than, we don’t have… Read more »
Trouble is, the youth today really do have problems and are the product of an unprecedented (and continuing) eugenics experiment on a global scale which has had some devastating consequences for today’s generation (23% of 14 year old girls self harming? I ask you!), and likely more to come.
Absolutely history has a subjective element, same with historical science and indeed computer models (part of what I have labelled the culture of “advanced fantasising” by elements of the scientific community).
A wise philosopher friend told me that there is no such thing as certainty, only cumulative probability (something that events remind us of from time to time). Whilst this wisdom obviously has its limits, there is some truth in it. And certainly in these times we need to be wary of claims of “settled science”, a pronouncement which can turn out to be more political than scientific.
Absolutely history has a subjective element, same with historical science and indeed computer models (part of what I have labelled the culture of “advanced fantasising” by elements of the scientific community).
A bizarre combination. Everything humans communicate necessarily has a subjective element to it. But we cannot possibly quantify and eliminate that, hence, we have to trust in other people’s honesty in this respect, eg, that Thucydides, given his stated goal of writing a history, did his best to report things objectively. Unless we have real information to the contray, that is.
Computer models, however these landed in this sentence and context, have no objective element in them. But this has no relation to what I was writing about.
A wise philosopher friend told me that there is no such thing as certainty, only cumulative probability
A pretty stupid statement. If there’s no certainty, how can he know that for certain?
The reference to historical science is a reference to my Darwin scepticism where historical scientists apparently fill the gaps in their historical hypotheses with best guesses (influenced in some cases by an overarching philosophy that specifically precludes the miraculous). The same seems to have happened with historical climate estimates in the absence of satellite data and other relevant information going back to, for example, the medieval warm period. Similarly, there is an element of guesswork about the plague of computer models we have been bombarded with that have ruined our lives and livelihood, and it seems to me a reasonable and relevant comparison. Cumulative probability was, I think, also mentioned in connection with the miraculous, he is one of my Christian friends. The point is that scientific experiments demonstrating something by being able to repeat it in a laboratory may be proven wrong by subsequent events and observations, rather like the person who watches a thousand games of chess and concludes that pawn always becomes a queen on reaching the far side (when in reality it could become a knight or theoretically something else). I repeat, claims of “settled science” must be subject to rigorous scrutiny as we have seen… Read more »
Universal relativism is the very core of woke ideology. According to you, history doesn’t exist, it’s just speculations by people who call themselves historians. Likewise, historical climate estimates obviously can’t exist, either, that’s just collections of numbers everybody can modify in whichever ways suits him because his preferred interpretation is as good as anybody else’s. Obviously, information about how communicable disease work out in the real world doesn’t exist, either. Fergusons models are as good as anything else, reality be damned. The christian who claims to believe that nothing is certain, in other words, that it’s by no means certain that God exists, is a nice icing on the cake.
I hope I’ve summarized your standpoint correctly. It’s certainly not mine.
I think you misunderstand Christianity. For us the greatest gifts are faith, hope and love. The Christian creed says “I believe”, not “I have proven in a laboratory”. The same of course is true of other religions, that they depend on belief, including the various atheist ones although some atheists may not believe so. However, in the same way as some events observed in a laboratory can be considered as worthy of belief through cumulative probability, for Christians the same is true of the miracles to which Christians (and others) have born witness both in the bible and up to and including the present time, and which miracles are fundamental to the credibility of our faith (which is why the CCP and their allies are so keen to push naturalistic hypotheses).. The trouble about history that i was particularly thinking of was widespread misconceptions about the Tudors which for many years went unchallenged, even unsuspected. There remain of course misconceptions about these and other historical matters. The problem however that particularly concerns me is treating history, and historical science the same as something that has been observed and repeated in a laboratory, whereas in reality it is fundamentally different. That… Read more »
Once again, I call peak woke.
Yes, there will be bumps in the road, and the situation in universities is clearly a problem, but we are starting to see pushback now, and I see the decision of the “U.S.” supreme court today as another sign of this. Anyhow, we have maybe seen a peak in university numbers; 50% getting a university education is a rich msn’s game, same as net zero, and the expected escalation of the long-running financial crisis is upon us (with Germany looking at rationing now)
Interestingly, one of the first states to take this new opportunity to protect children is South Dakota, who also protected children (and adults) through the last two years while others were committing crimes against humanity. Clearly a state where human rights, real rights, are respected.
I also blame once again this culture of killing going back decades for helping to create today’s culture of fearfulness and snowflakery. Hard to feel safe and emotionally sound when family members are being killed.
Interesting also that “Brexiter” parents are apparently more tolerant than parents who support the Brussels (and Strassburg and Letzebuerg) regime (that seems bent on giving “human rights” a bad name).
Money.
Tony Blair planned this all along.
**
Stand in the Park Sundays 10.30 -11.30am
make friends & keep sane
from the globalist covid & climate propaganda
*
Wokingham
Howard Palmer Gardens Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
*
Telegram astandintheparkbracknell
There wasn’t a great deal of tolerance on display on campuses of the 1970s.
Various organisations in receipt of student union funding had to be forced to open their doors to all comers but then went back into hiding, concealing meeting times and locations.
‘Show of hands’ votes on the continued occupation of university buildings were immediately re-voted on if the result went the wrong way, after the dissenters had dispersed.
Eventually the buildings had to be cleared by the university rugby team by ‘persuasion’….
And that was at, arguably, the most moderate university in the country.
Very true. Any society that wanted to be officially recognised by the student union and by extension the NUS had to have an open doors policy in their constitution, and this was before any anti discrimination legislation.
Don’t forget the boycotting of Barclays Bank because of its ties to South Africa apartheid.
There is little doubt in my mind that the feminisation of education has played a significant role. If primary education was 90% staffed by men there would be outcry, yet it is 90% women. Any system that essentially turns every white boy into ‘special educational needs’ is really failing on inclusion.
I find all this utterly amazing. Surely intelligent people realize that free speech is so important in our seats of learning. Without it you cannot challenge theories and move humanity forward, as you cannot get to the answers that are demanded without robust debate. Although I am not a free speech purist, as I believe unbridled free speech has never been socially acceptable, but it is quite clear that the afore mentioned ‘intelligent people’ are no longer found in our universities. We are indeed living in a post-enlightenment era, where dogma has returned. Oh dear.