First. I don't think it's debatable that U.S. Universities are way more left than the average U.S. citizen or even the average university member internationally. Data from his think tank. Ratio of right-wing to left-wing students in U.S. universities:
- PhD: 10.8x
- Master: 7.9x
- Undergraduate: 9.2x
- 18-24 non-uni student: 3.2x
Anecdotally most people would say that universities are substantially more leftist than the population, therefore, I'll accept this as a factual truth. Now try to understand why is that.

In recent months, I have become a reader of the Richard Hanania's Newsletter. I generally disagree with him in most stuff (I'm liberal, he's conservative), but I generally like his descriptions of how the world works, particularly with regards to universities.

Here's a brief summary by ChatGPT of Why Everything is Liberal:

Hanania's argument delves into the phenomenon of "Woke Capital" and the apparent political leanings of major American institutions towards liberal positions, despite a near-even split in national political preference. He suggests that the difference in influence between conservatives and liberals isn't due to the number of votes each side garners but rather the level of engagement and intensity (cardinal utility) with which liberals pursue their political objectives. Liberals, he argues, are more likely to donate, protest, and engage in other forms of political activism, thereby exerting a disproportionate influence on institutions outside of election cycles. This engagement results in institutions and professional fields appearing to lean left, reflecting the preferences of the more politically active liberal minority rather than the electoral parity between conservative and liberal voters. Hanania explores various facets of this dynamic, including donor patterns, protest participation, and ideological representation in academia and the media, to illustrate why institutions might align with liberal preferences despite a divided electorate.

A second explanation of his generally comes from the excellent text Liberals read, conservatives watcH TV. Again from ChatGPT:

Richard Hanania's post explores the ideological divide between conservatives and liberals in American politics, attributing the effectiveness and dominance of liberal agendas to the intellectual and written-word culture within liberal circles, contrasted with the more visceral, television-based culture of conservatives. He argues that liberals, driven by a deeper engagement with ideas and a willingness to push boundaries, influence institutions and policy more effectively than conservatives, who focus more on tribal loyalty and personality-driven politics. This dynamic allows liberals to shape public opinion and policy over time, even if it costs them short-term electoral success, while conservatives struggle to make lasting ideological impacts despite occasional electoral victories. Hanania suggests that this difference in approach explains why liberal positions tend to advance in society and institutions, despite a roughly even political divide in the electorate.

In recent podcast episodes, Hanania has radicalized his position even more and he thinks that most smart people are liberal and he is very concerned with the ability of Republicans to fill positions in future administrations given the brain drain they are suffering since 2016.

Therefore, a possible two-pronged explanation of why U.S. universities are so leftist is:

1. Most smart people tend to be liberal, and universities are populated with smart people
2. University isn't the best paying job, so you tend to attract people that are motivated by ideas and prestige rather than money. E.g.: You attract the optimist kid who will make a PhD in economics to help make the world better rather than going to work in Wall Street.

Obviously, this is one explanation, and you aren't bound by Hanania's or anyone else's view of the world. You can try changing my mind by suggesting a third model to be the main one.

My argument is that the opportunity cost for Americans to pursue PhDs is very high. The U.S. have much longer PhD timelines than most places in the world, some people graduating after 7 years. And if you're out of a top 30 university, exactly the ones we're, you can get better jobs on corporate America that often pay 3-5x more than you'd get from a stipend during PhD. Even after PhD, it isn't obvious you're set for life, you may need still a post-doc, so it's an almost a decade of below-average income.

But if you're a foreigner this works nice. 1- This is one of the best immigration path. 2- If you're Indian, Latino, Chinese, and so on, the stipend creates a better quality of life than you'd get on your home country. According to the NSF, 56% of PhD students are foreign-born in the U.S.

It is very hard to be conservative in the U.S. if you're foreign born, particularly if you're not a U.S. citizen! But PhD students and mostly later when they become professors and researchers, they have an outstanding ability to shape public discourse. And they use it! If now you're in the democrat big tent, you end up getting the other stuff from the liberal/leftist world-view.

A corollary is that Republicans would benefit a lot if they were to soft their instance on immigration of highly educated individuals. If F-2/J-2 visa were better for family members, you had easier paths to H1-Bs and green cards as a PhD student, and so on, they'd have much less of a key issue to join the democrat tent. Obviously, I don't think they'd suddenly become conservative, lol, but maybe you get PhD lib to conservative proportion back to 5x, 4x, and unis would make a bit less opposition to republicans. You can too try to change my mind on this one.

EDIT: Lots of people are pushing back saying that most undergrad students are white or U.S. Born. This is obvious. But please, note that I added official data that 56% of U.S. PhD students are foreign-born. The unspoken part that may be causing confusion is that I'm assuming that University culture is created by staff. Therefore the ideology that undergrad students depends on professors. And professors make PhDs. Therefore, studying what happens during PhD programs is helpful to understand universities. You may disagree with this assumption.