As I navigate through the maze of Academia, anecdotally I find mysefl in some very curious situations. Last week for example, I taught a course on Catholicism and Climate Change and felt mysefl against the wall as students (young and old) were demanding that the Pope be clearer if he wanted Catholics to support climate change or abortion, and how to negotiate the American political divide. I had to tell them the Pope would not tell people which candidates to choose, nor would he dedicate word addresses to specific issues and problems of one country or another. Certainly the Pope was clear on the inviolable sanctity of life but he was also greatly promoting the care and protection of the environment and climate. If the American political system placed citizens in a difficult position, that was not his fault, but rather the moralism that underlies politics and religion. I am not sure if I was understood.
But the piece Anecdotes aside, there are recent studies that show an incredible political bias in academia, especially the humanities. A thorough study, with hard data, shows the phenomenon here. The sociology ratio for example, for Democrat: Republican is 44:1 . But the piece that has been getting more attention is Dr. Haidt’s talk. Here is an article in the NYT, showing bias in social psychology specifically. Roger Pielke Jr. has also jumped on the debate here.