Universities were once celebrated as arenas of free thought, where diverse ideas could challenge one another, and truth could emerge from debate. However, a new form of intolerance has gripped campuses worldwide, stifling intellectual diversity and turning academic institutions into echo chambers.

My experience at Princeton University illustrates the extent of this culture of suppression and the dangerous consequences it poses for education.

On March 27, 2023, I was invited to speak about Israel’s legal system dispute at the Center for Jewish Life at Princeton. Although I have never hidden my Jewish identity, this was the first time I was invited to speak publicly about Israel. Until then, I was focused on my work as associate research scholar and lecturer, as part of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions in the Department of Politics at Princeton University.

As the event date approached, several professors from other departments pressured the organizers to cancel my lecture, arguing that my Zionist viewpoints had no place on campus. The irony was glaring: a university that prides itself on diversity was actively working to silence a viewpoint that didn’t fit the accepted narrative.

On the day of the lecture, I was escorted through a back entrance by campus security. A group of student protesters, encouraged by faculty members, had blocked the main entrance. Their signs read “Racist,” “Democracy for Israelis and Palestinians,” “No Democracy under Apartheid,” and “No Blank Check for Apartheid.”

These were not calls for dialogue, but declarations that dissenting voices were unwelcome. The protest wasn’t about what I might say; it was about sending a message: those who defy the prevailing ideology will face resistance.

Some rioters and demonstrators forcefully entered the building, creating a tense atmosphere charged with disapproval from a faculty that once championed open inquiry. Unfortunately, the lecture was repeatedly disrupted — shouts through megaphones, the beating of drums outside the hall, and verbal outbursts interrupting nearly every sentence from people inside. I could not finish a single sentence. After enduring these disruptions for an extended period, I saw no point in continuing the lecture. Ultimately, the police escorted me back to my car.

Today, many academics see their role as enforcing ideological conformity, leaving no room for genuine debate. My lecture was just one skirmish in a broader battle to reshape the university into a space devoid of diverse perspectives. The hostility extended beyond the lecture hall, revealing a deeper and more systemic issue within the academic environment.

Despite the staunch defense of the Madison program and the colleagues who worked with me on a daily basis, the attacks against me did not stop. Professors defamed me, wrote letters against me, tried to cancel my course, and organized a media persecution campaign. The backlash against my presence escalated in campus publications, where I was labeled an extremist — not for my work, but for my conservative and Zionist beliefs. This wasn’t about academic discourse; it was an ideological purge.

What saddened me the most was that my request for a personal meeting with the president or dean of the university was refused.

This episode is emblematic of a larger trend: the suffocation of intellectual diversity and the rise of a new orthodoxy that threatens the foundational values of academic freedom.

At universities everywhere, professors have been pushing for changes to the hiring process that would prioritize ideological alignment over academic excellence. Their goal is clear: to exclude scholars who don’t fit the desired mold, ensuring a uniform intellectual environment.

The future of education depends on our ability to resist this tide of conformity and reclaim the university as a place where all ideas, even those that challenge the status quo, can be heard.

Universities are acting more like the institutions of the Middle Ages that enforced a single, dominant ideology. Back then, academic freedom was severely constrained by religious dogma. Today, the ideological gatekeeping is no less restrictive, though now it is secular in nature.

The shift toward a singular ideological stance threatens the foundational mission of higher education. Just as medieval institutions imposed theological constraints on academic pursuits, today’s universities enforce ideological boundaries that stifle critical thinking and the pursuit of truth. In this climate, truth is no longer the product of open inquiry but is dictated by those who hold power, leaving little room for constructive debate. The once-vibrant marketplace of ideas has been reduced to a space where only approved viewpoints are allowed to thrive.

This environment fundamentally undermines the pursuit of truth. In spaces where debate is suppressed, critical thinking cannot flourish. Truth has become a function of power, and without the ability to challenge and question, we lose our capacity to scrutinize our own assumptions. Individuals are reduced to caricatures — superficial, unrefined, and lacking depth. Instead of striving to uncover truth, as in propaganda films from authoritarian regimes, the academy employs aggressive tactics to mask its own distance from it.

The impact on students is profound. Many now self-censor, fearing the consequences of expressing views that might place them outside the accepted narrative. They’ve learned that challenging dominant viewpoints can lead to social exclusion or academic penalties. Rather than being trained in critical thinking, students are being conditioned to conform intellectually.

Universities now stand at a crossroads. They can continue down this path, fostering a culture of ideological uniformity and suppressing free exchange. Or, they can return to their foundational principles as places where ideas are tested, debated, and refined. True pluralism goes beyond superficial diversity; it requires an environment where conflicting viewpoints can coexist and engage. The most crucial pluralism to champion is not one of appearances, but one of ideas.

Once, scholars would say, “Here are my arguments. What are yours?” Today, the spirit of intellectual inquiry is under siege. The new mantra is, “Here are my arguments, and if you dare to disagree, we will remove you — and still call ourselves pluralists.”

We are in a state of emergency. Universities must go beyond mere statements of commitment to free speech, such as the Chicago Principles, and take active measures to restore ideological balance. The situation is so dire that it now demands affirmative action, not just to protect academic freedom, but to actively recruit conservative voices that have been systematically excluded.

We typically think of affirmative action in terms of race or gender, with the aim of fostering a diversity of perspectives, particularly those that have been marginalized or excluded. If admission to academic institutions were solely based on academic excellence, conservatives would have no trouble being admitted and advancing. However, in recent years, not only has excellence ceased to be the sole criterion, but conservatives have also become singled out. Paradoxically, despite their academic achievements, they are often excluded because of their views. Thus, to truly ensure a diversity of perspectives within academia, we must cultivate ideological diversity, not just gender or racial diversity. Affirmative action should extend to protecting and representing conservative views, adapting the existing mechanisms to include voices that are currently marginalized and silenced.

Mitchell Langbert and Sean Stevens highlight the severe ideological imbalance among faculty at major universities, particularly within the social sciences. Their study found that the overall ratio of registered Democrats to Republicans among faculty members is 8.5:1. In specific fields, this disparity becomes even more extreme. In sociology, the ratio is 27:1 in favor of Democrats, and in anthropology, it skyrockets to 42.2:1.

This troubling trend is not limited to specific fields; it also extends across some of the most prestigious universities. Brown University has a ratio of 21.3:1, indicating a significant imbalance, while Columbia’s ratio of 24.5:1 shows a slightly higher dominance of liberal perspectives. Yale’s ratio reaches 31.3:1, reflecting an even greater skew toward one political ideology. Princeton University presents a more serious case with a ratio of 40:1, demonstrating a pronounced lack of conservative viewpoints. At the top of the scale is Harvard, where the ratio reaches a staggering 88:1, highlighting an overwhelming and nearly complete absence of ideological balance.

These figures underscore the urgency of adopting corrective measures to foster a more balanced and intellectually diverse academic environment. The marketplace of ideas must remain vibrant and contested. Otherwise, the very essence of learning is lost.

My experience of persecution is not a personal problem. It is a symptom of a much more severe issue. I was persecuted because I am part of a conservative viewpoint, which is one that is systematically excluded from the academic discourse.

The time has come to reclaim the true mission of the university. We must ensure our academic spaces remain open to all voices, not just those that comfortably fit the prevailing narrative. Intellectual freedom is not just an academic ideal — it’s the bedrock of a vibrant society. It must be defended, even when inconvenient, because only then can we keep the pursuit of knowledge alive.

Ronen Shoval taught and conducted research at Princeton University during the 2022-23 academic year. His latest book, “Holiness and Society: A Socio-Political Exploration of the Mosaic Tradition,” was published by Routledge, 2024.

The post I Was Shunned at Princeton for Being a Zionist; We Must Actively Ensure Academic Diversity Now first appeared on Algemeiner.com.