Ventriloquising the right: the challenges of ideological bias

I am not sure if there was ever a time when politics did not intrude into the university classroom. Nevertheless, there certainly seems to have been an increase in political debate around teaching in higher education in recent years. From one side (broadly speaking, the left), there is increasing concern that courses reflect a narrow dominant perspective, leading to efforts to increase curriculum diversity, particularly in terms of gender and race. From another (broadly speaking, the right), there are fears that efforts to protect students’ emotional wellbeing through things like trigger warnings prevent students to being exposed to controversial views that challenge the left-leaning orthodoxy.

In common with the left critique, I want to explore the diversity of perspectives to which students are exposed. Like the right critique, I want to take seriously the possibility that right-wing viewpoints may be sidelined. This is not intended as a challenge to the left critique – I’m merely suggesting that conservative views might be among those disadvantaged. However, whereas the right critique has tended to focus on the overt restriction of topics from discussion, I want to discuss more subtle forms of potential bias. 

Academics are considerably more likely than the general public to be on the political left. As the chart below, produced by Chris Hanretty, shows, around half of higher education staff supported the Labour party between 2014 and 2016 and about as many supported the Green Party as the Conservatives:

Hanretty Chart

As Linvill & Grant document, perceived liberal bias has led to significant hostility towards universities from the political right in the US and Australia. A 2004 opinion poll found that 51% of the US public thought academics improperly brought their left-wing politics into the classroom. Higher education does not seem to have been dragged into such a ferocious culture war in the UK, but here, too, some on the right have raised objections.

I am part of the dominant left-leaning majority. What’s more, I teach a course touching on a number of highly politically contentious issues, including trade unions, the welfare state and immigration. Naturally, I have been reflecting on how this might influence my teaching and whether I should make any changes.

Linvill & Grant distinguish two versions of the claim that university teachers’ political ideology influences their teaching. On the one hand, there is what they call the “benign form”: that teachers might argue more strongly for their beliefs, but present these as one alternative among many. On the other, they describe as the ‘libellous form’ the view that teachers unprofessionally use the power they hold to inculcate a certain worldview in their students. 

However, this clean distinction between acceptable and unacceptable partisanship is rather simplistic. To me at least, it seems that there is a something of a spectrum from providing a perfectly neutral perspective on an issue (which is practically impossible) and presenting outright propaganda. There are various ways that we can depart from the pole of neutrality: by presenting fewer perspectives, by spending more time discussing certain perspectives, by discussing certain perspectives more enthusiastically, by being more encouraging to student responses that chime with a certain perspective. The more of these things that we do, and the greater extent to which we do them, the further away from neutrality we get.

I am sure that I departed from neutrality over the course of my teaching. There were times in class when I definitely struggled to ‘ventriloquise’ conservative views. For example, when a student asked my why some people are uncomfortable with ethnic diversity I had difficulty making plausible an intuition I did not share, for all that I have read about it.

Given the impossibility of perfect neutrality, the key question is where to draw the line – how neutral ought we to be? Kelly-Woessner & Woessner, using a US survey, provide some evidence on the effects of discernible partisanship. They find that students who believe their teacher to be of a similar political orientation to them report “more learning, higher levels of effort and greater interest in the subject”. This chimes with some of my personal concerns in teaching this year – the worry that conservative students might feel inhibited and disengaged from the course.

There is, of course, another way to read the Kelly-Woessner & Woessner findings: if students do better when taught by a perceived political ally, then neutrality might worsen the performance of left-leaning students. If these comprise the majority, overtly ideological teaching might even be the better course of action.

Another possibility is that this is altogether too calculating. It is worth considering the value of authenticity. Being open with students about teachers’ ideological commitments, and trusting them to distinguish their own views might strengthen teacher-student relationships. Indeed, Smith et al’s focus groups with US students found that many would prefer teachers to be more forthcoming about their political positions. Then again, Linvill & Grant suggest that students may use perceived ideological bias to reject criticism or feedback from teachers, so such openness may undermine teachers’ authority to some extent.

Ultimately, I do not think there is a clear straightforward answer to the question of how to address ideological bias as a teacher. A certain amount of bias is inevitable and perhaps even desirable (for authenticity’s sake). Full-on indoctrination is clearly unprofessional and most likely ineffective and counterproductive. But somewhere in between there exists an elusive, probably uncodifiable, perfect balance.


2 thoughts on “Ventriloquising the right: the challenges of ideological bias

Add yours

  1. I liked this post and thought it raised some very valid points. As a starting point, building on the idea that it might be oversimplistic to classify acceptable and unacceptable forms of partisanship, it is maybe also problematic or simplistic to overemphasise whether the multifarious thoughts and ideas circulated within academia are “right wing” or “left wing”, and perhaps we would not hear that critique if the balance overall reflected a more right-wing agenda. Surely the emphasis should instead be whether the thoughts, ideas and discussions present within academia are actually diverse.

    Indeed within the critiques outlined in the post, it seems to me that both left-wing and rightwing positions are calling for as diverse a range of ideas and positions as possible (following the right-wing argument that the problem with left-wing thinking is that it restricts us from considering ‘controversial’ views which challenge left-wing orthodoxies). By bringing more left-wing thinking, and hence diversity, into the academic sphere, we are indeed doing this. I think it could be argued that left-wing “orthodoxy” actually contains within it an inherently critical approach which allows us to better consider others’ perspectives and challenge our own. Indeed one of the articles, by Sam Dumitriu, referenced within the post describes a study which found that (left-wing) academics are likely to be more “open to experience, be creative and have an intellectual curiosity” – surely such characteristics are more likely to lend themselves to carefully considering the widest possible range of perspectives? If academia is indeed dominated by left-wing academics, this is perhaps actually leads to more diverse and open thinking than one dominated by right-wing perspectives.

    That’s not to say that we do not each problematically hold our own ideological perspectives which may influence our teaching. As this post rightly argues, it is impossible to completely step outside such perspectives, however hard we try. We must therefore consider carefully the impact this has on teaching and try to work in a way which prioritises the majority of students needs and learning. But if left-wing students do compromise the majority they are perhaps, following the above study, more likely to value the openness of teachers’ ‘authenticity’ and transparency. Something to bear in mind?


  2. What a fantastic post, Aveek! It touches upon so many important, yet overlooked aspects of this issue. I particularly enjoyed the articles/papers you have linked to. I have downloaded Carl’s paper (my first from the Adam Smith Instt) and also read Andrew Sullivan’s piece in the Daily Intelligencer/New York. The latter is a really interesting viewpoint to hear from a British-born liberal elite, though as he claims, one has who has moved abroad (is my bias showing). Brookfield’s piece (see Module 7 reading list) also discusses different ways of “othering” which is related to how your neutrality-bias spectrum plays out in a classroom or lecture theatre.
    I am not sure that there is a perfect balance to be struck, imo it’s probably more about being transparent and open to other points of view and challenging our own.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: