Left-leaning perspectives dominate campus discourse in GW’s social and academic spaces, sidelining conservative perspectives. Professors and students here make an assumption when entering a space: that everyone else is also left leaning. By operating on that assumption, we lose the opportunity to interact with different opinions, which produces monolithic dialogue that ultimately lessens the quality of our education by curtailing the development of bipartisan communication skills.
The professors here play a prominent role in perpetuating liberal views in class — symbolic of a national phenomenon, with 50 percent of professors self-identifying as liberal and 26 percent as conservative in a 2022 survey. Just last year, I had a professor who failed to mask his liberal attitude during lectures. Heading into election season, he commented on how many times President Donald Trump had been fact-checked during the debate, which was acceptable until he quipped, “But that’s not surprising for that party,” before quickly moving on. Was it funny? I had thought so, and many of my peers did too. Looking back, though, the professor’s joke was a clear indication of his bias, and it shut down the prospect of a broader conversation about the points made by either party — effectively killing any opportunities for discussion or intellectual growth.
What’s worse is how his political bias bled into his course content. In teaching us about campaign strategies, he showed us TV advertisements from both parties. The ads from the Republican Party were increasingly negative, dramatic and featured more attacks on the other party, while the Democratic Party ads only depicted attempts to appeal to specific demographics. It felt like a discreet portrayal of the Republican Party as more ill motivated in their pursuits compared to a more “lawful” approach employed by Democrats and did not reflect the full breadth of ads circulating at the time.
In the months leading up to the election, though, I had seen less aggressive Republican ads and more critical Democratic ones, in addition to those he presented. By failing to mention that these tactics were used by both campaigns, we were left with an incomplete and unfair comparison of either party. Furthermore, some of the readings he assigned felt strongly partisan in their arguments. For example, one article described Trump’s supporters as responding only to misinformation, which is occasionally true but not always the case and ignored the other reasons one might support Trump. This bias in the curriculum harms our education by limiting our exposure to differing ideas — an issue that will materialize when students leave this University’s bubble and encounter people with various views and identities.
While it may seem minuscule, the ease with which the professor shared his prejudicial comments and the way the parties were portrayed in the class furthered the partisan divide already dominating campus.
I cannot reasonably assume the actions of this professor reflect the broader GW faculty, but it does seem to be a common trend. My peers have reported hearing comments like “What did Trump do this time?” in their classrooms, implying that the problem is widespread. Given this information, it’s necessary that professors put more effort into disguising their personal preferences and fairly presenting all parties or at the very least being respectful of different parties. Any partisan remarks must be limited in the classroom because they are a disservice to students. Our discussions should encourage diverse political attitudes to prevent silencing needed voices.
That isn’t to say professors are wholly at fault — students also need to check their biases when engaging in any exchange. Liberal voices are too comfortable expressing their opinions as collectively accepted facts, demonstrating that a greater effort on their part is necessary to create open spaces for the sake of their education.
I realized the bias as I was speaking with other Hatchet opinions writers. The newspaper is nonpartisan and strives to portray a wide array of opinions, but in our meetings, I recognized a clear dominant perspective. At times, staff writers are surprised by a conservative perspective — a reaction that suggests we might not have expected that opinion.
Since this realization, I noticed that the liberal assumption is held even within classroom discussions, which is especially troubling as a political science major. As the expected drivers of public policy, it’s crucial that we have experience reasoning with contrasting ideas to craft agreeable solutions. Currently, students in class often preface their statements with generalizations like “We all know” the recent Republican budget proposal is “ridiculous” because it would dissolve Obamacare early and reduce Medicaid funds. The assumed agreement is problematic. It discourages other ideas from entering the conversation, which hampers our ability to have productive and genuine debates — the backbone of our political education. We can’t develop the analytical skills necessary to be GW’s “inquisitive thinkers” without allowing room for contrasting views to challenge our own.
The liberal assumption is part of, if not the reason why, conservative voices are sparsely heard in the classroom. It would be difficult for anyone to express themself when the presumed status quo is against someone’s beliefs. By allowing bias to seep into the classroom, alternative ideas struggle to enter discourse. Without that valuable commentary, we miss an exchange of ideas that could facilitate learning opportunities and promote empathy between peers.
Unless we speak with the intent of inviting diverse ideas, we’ll only exacerbate the effects of echo chambers, and our own education will suffer. Finally, and most importantly, the conservative population at GW needs to be more vocal about their positions, especially in academic settings, to remind others that this University doesn’t represent just one party. It is not their fault liberal voices assume verity, but it is their responsibility to demand the respect their ideas deserve.
The presence of the left-leaning assumption within academic spaces significantly harms the reputability of our education as political scholars and our ability to navigate difficult conversations, which should concern us all. If we are ever going to engage in a meaningful conversation about our differing beliefs, we, professors and students alike, need to recognize the assumption and make a conscious effort to negate it.
Vanessa Paige, a sophomore majoring in political science, is an opinions writer.
