What if it were the other way around: Universities were overwhelmingly conservative and shut down liberal ideas & faculty for years

Then a liberal president comes to power

As the Trump administration exerts maximal pressure on universities and medical centers to comply with its’ demands: eliminate masking on campuses, eliminate DEI, follow merit based admission policies, etc, many have strong feelings, and these divide along political lines. In fact, let’s start with a poll:

Now, I am curious how you would feel if the shoe were on the other foot. What if Universities had slid into conservative domination over the last 2 decades, and it was a liberal president in power, attempting to correct that. In what follows, I describe such a scenario, and have you vote again.

---

Imagine: Universities in 2025 are broadly controlled by conservatives, though America is still 50-50. This ranges from ultra-conservative universities* to merely modestly conservative ones. Nearly all the vocal faculty are conservative. The leadership is all, outwardly, conservative.

It is commonplace for doctors and students and staff to say they are voting for Trump, and that we need to get out the vote— increase turnout— by encouraging our patient’s to vote. On their badge, doctors have the symbol of the federalist society and a tesla logo. They wear MAGA hats, even on rounds. Lectures begin by an economic acknowledgment saying that capitalism is great— even if it has nothing to do with the topic: urine sodium.

Annual training modules exist where we learn about the virtues of libertarianism, and all first year medical students are asked to read The Fountainhead** and discuss. There are protests on campus to cut all US financial support for the Ukraine, until Zelensky is ready to make peace. In a few schools, these protests go berserk and threaten students who disagree. Admissions is based largely on merit and legacy and a few odd things (below).

Now imagine you are an academic researcher studying abortion— you are pro-choice. You rarely discuss the topic with your peers— but wrote about it years ago. You are picked to be the white coat speaker because you are the best doctor, but then students walk out on your talk because they refuse to listen to anyone who isn't a pro-life speaker.

A pandemic strikes. The universities say if you have a runny nose or fever you MUST take ivermectin*** for 2 weeks and we will check your urine for metabolites. If not, you will be fired. Many faculty are fired, including ones that are accomplished. By the fall, the recommendation changes and now you must take ivermectin and febendazole****. A few more people are fired. No randomized trials are conducted.

You are a faculty member who thinks n95 masking might help and suggest we study it— perhaps only in the elderly. The chair meets with you to discuss how you are spreading misinformation and that perhaps you should stop speaking publicly. You say: listen, I am not even saying for everyone, but can we just say if you are over 90 and very vulnerable, you *might* consider wearing an n95 or not going to the clubs, or we might run a trial. The answer: that is dangerous misinformation.***** The university then strips you of teaching duties, and cuts your FTE, preventing you from other opportunities. Now let us say you are a medical student who thinks: maybe we should protect nursing home patients a little— the university then removes you.

The medical journals are all floridly conservative. The British journal Nature endorses Trump. The NEJM has a series of articles called in defense of conservative values in medicine. Whenever a liberal state makes a policy, it publishes an editorial saying it disagrees. The editor of Science— a huge conservative from North Carolina— decries the New York State surgeon general as a misinformation spreader in a series of op-eds. Even though that has nothing to do with basic science.

All grants are funded if they contain conservative buzzwords. A series of words like community, and traditional marriage, etc, are guaranteed to get NIH funding. And all the while, Universities participate fully in this.

If you volunteer in church, you are preferentially admitted to medical school. If you get married by the age of 25, or have more kids, you get massive bonus points for being admitted or promoted.******

Meanwhile, America is still 50:50, liberal and conservative, and a liberal president comes to power winning the electoral college and popular vote. Should the liberal president utilize federal funding to exert leverage on universities to be more balanced?

After all, federal funding has always come with myriad strings attached. Maybe pro-choice faculty should not be stripped of teaching duties. Maybe they should investigate viewpoint diversity. Maybe it is illegal to preferentially admit people married by 25 or those with kids over single people? Maybe the set point of universities should be closer to the set point of America?

Now what do you think?

PS: I was going to make an analogy for the conservative equivalent for what the liberals are doing in transgender medicine, and I thought of a good one, but if I said it, the internet would melt.

*as conservative as Oberlin is liberal.

** Rather than Kendi’s Anti-racism.

*** an ivermectin mandate is as stupid as mandating boosters for young men who already had covid, and as stupid as vaccine mandates for a vaccine that doesn’t halt transmission.

**** the new fall booster rubber stamped by Beter Barks at FDA.

***** seems like the opposite of thinking masking toddlers is crazy would be thinking that older people should take no precautions at all, and indeed, may of us were punished for saying masking toddlers is crazy. I should know.

****** DEI in reverse