The Jewish University Takeover

Excerpts from ‘Why Are Professors Liberals?’

Kevin MacDonald

The Occidental Quarterly, vol. 10, no. 2, Summer 2010, pp. 57-87

2. Jewish intellectuals formed cohesive, effective networks

The following is a passage from The Culture of Critique summarizing the cohesion of Jewish intellectual networks discussed in the rest of the book:

An important thread apparent in the discussions of psychoanalysis, Boasian anthropology, the Frankfurt School, and radical intellectual and political circles has been that Jewish intellectuals have formed highly cohesive groups whose influence derives to a great extent from the solidarity and cohesiveness of the group.

...Intellectual activity is like any other human endeavor: Cohesive groups outcompete individualist strategies. Indeed, the fundamental truth of this axiom has been central to the success of Judaism throughout its history.69

I have already noted that cohesive groups of politically radical Jews formed subgroups within academic associations in the social sciences beginning in the 1960s. These subgroups functioned to not only promote leftist ideologies, but also as ethnic networks that promoted their members as paragons of academic wisdom. The New York Intellectuals, many of whom ended up at elite universities for part of their careers, also illustrate this point.

The New York Intellectuals

Among this self-described “alienated” and “marginalized” group, there was also an atmosphere of strong social support. This undoubtedly functioned – as had traditional Jewish ingroup solidarity – as reinforcement against an outside world seen as morally and intellectually inferior. They perceived themselves as people with a complaint who must cling together against the forces of evil – “rebel intellectuals defending a minority position and upholding the best traditions of radicalism.“74 Their flagship journal, Partisan Review, provided “a haven and support” and a sense of social identity; it “served to assure many of its members that they were not alone in the world, that sympathetic intellectuals existed in sufficient number to provide them with social and professional moorings.”75 There was thus a great deal of continuity to this “coherent, distinguishable group” of intellectuals “who mainly began their careers as revolutionary communists in the 1930s to become an institutionalized and even hegemonic component of American culture during the conservative 1950s while maintaining a high degree of collective continuity.”76

Mutual citation

Another aspect of the cohesiveness of academic Jews is their citation patterns. Greenwood and Schuh showed that Jewish professors were 40 percent more likely to cite other Jews than were non-Jewish professors.77 Jewish first authors of scientific papers were also approximately three times more likely to have Jewish coauthors than were non-Jewish first authors. This imbalance in co-authors shows Jewish group cohesion – Jewish professors having Jewish students as protégés, for example.

Citation by other scientists is an important indication of scholarly accomplishment and is often a key measure used in tenure decisions by universities. As a result, Jewish ethnic biases in citation patterns have the effect of promoting the work and reputation of other Jewish scientists and making it easier to get tenure at elite universities. Providing further evidence in this regard, the studies by Kadushin,78 Shapiro,79 and Torrey80 of twentieth-century American intellectuals indicate not only a strong overlap among Jewish background, Jewish ethnic identification, Jewish associational patterns, radical political beliefs, and psychoanalytic influence, but also a pattern of mutual citation and admiration. In Kadushin’s study, almost half of the complete sample of elite American intellectuals was Jewish. The sample was based on the most frequent contributors to leading intellectual journals, followed by interviews in which the intellectuals “voted” for another intellectual whom he or she considered most influential in their thinking. Over 40 percent of the Jews in the sample received six or more votes as being most influential, compared to only 15 percent of non-Jews.

Also contributing to cohesion has been the tendency to center around charismatic leaders (Boas, Freud, Horkheimer) with a powerful moral, intellectual, and social vision. The followers of these leaders had an intense devotion toward them, often mimicking their idiosyncrasies and promoting them as intellectual gods to their students and colleagues.

These ingroup biases – and the cohesiveness of these Jewish intellectual movements – doubtless account for the success of some of the more egregious politically-inspired social science of the last decades. For example, historian John Higham pointed out that the incredible success of the Authoritarian Personality studies (i.e., the studies that analyzed the group allegiances of non-Jews as the result of psychiatric disorder) was facilitated by the “extraordinary ascent” of Jews concerned with anti-Semitism in academic social science departments in the post-World War II era.81

3. Jewish intellectuals had access to the most prestigious academic institutions

The Jewish-dominated movements that transformed the academic world became ensconced in the most prestigious academic institutions. The New York Intellectuals, for example, developed ties with elite universities, particularly Harvard, Columbia, the University of Chicago, and the University of California-Berkeley, while psychoanalysis and Boasian anthropology became well entrenched throughout academia. The Frankfurt School intellectuals were associated with Columbia and the University of California-Berkeley, and their intellectual descendents are dispersed through the academic world. The neocons are mainly associated with the University of Chicago, Johns Hopkins, and, as noted above, they were able to get their material published by the academic presses at these universities and at Cornell.

Jewish influence in the popular media was an important source of favorable coverage of Jewish intellectual movements, particularly psychoanalysis and 1960s political radicalism.

The radicalization of the university

The Jewish movements that came to dominate the academy are not at all different from the wider Jewish community in making alliances with ethnic and sexual minorities. The organized Jewish community has made alliances with non-White ethnic groups and has championed the cause of public visibility for sexual minorities.86 Charles Silberman notes, “American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief – one firmly rooted in history – that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of U.S. Jews to endorse ‘gay rights’ and to take a liberal stance on most other so-called ‘social’ issues.”87

Conspicuously missing from the list of Jewish allies are lower- and middle-class Whites. These are the groups that were most vilified by the New York Intellectuals and the Frankfurt School, and they have suffered the most by the multicultural revolution. These people are being pushed out economically and politically.... They can’t move to gated communities or send their children to all-White private schools. Their unions have been destroyed and their jobs either shipped overseas or performed by recent immigrants, legal and illegal.

Their fortunes will continue to decline as millions more non-Whites crowd our shores. Those among them who wish to become professors will perforce have to turn their backs on the political and economic interests of their own people.

I propose that once the Jewish left came to dominate the academic world, the next step was to broaden the basis of the left and consolidate their power by promoting other aggrieved groups – groups with complaints against the culture. It is certainly the case that the triumph of the Jewish-dominated intellectual movements in the academic world was followed in short order by the establishment of these other pillars of the cultural left, and making alliances with non-White ethnic groups and sexual minorities has certainly typified Jewish political behavior in the United States.

The result of this revolution is the American university as we see it now. Conservatives need not apply. And heterosexual White males should be prepared to exhibit effusive demonstrations of guilt and sympathy with their oppressed co-workers – and expect to be passed over for high-profile administrative positions in favor of the many aggrieved ethnic and sexual minorities who now dominate the university.


69 MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, 215.

74 Cooney, The Rise of the New York Intellectuals, 265.

75 Ibid., 249.

76 Alan M. Wald, The New York Intellectuals: The Rise and Decline of the Anti-Stalinist Left from the 1930s to the 1980s (The University of North Carolina Press, 1987), 12, 10.

77 A. G. Greenwald and E. S. Schuh, “An Ethnic Bias in Scientific Citations,” European Journal of Social Psychology 24 (1994), 623-639.

78 Charles Kadushin, The American Intellectual Elite (Boston: Little, Brown, 2005)

79 E. S. Shapiro, “Jewishness and the New York Intellectuals,” Judaism, 38 (1989), 282-292.

80 E. Fuller Torrey, Freudian Fraud: The Malignant Effect of Freud’s Theory on American Thought and Culture (New York: HarperCollins, 1992).

81 Higham, Send These to Me, 154.

86 Kevin MacDonald, “Jews, Blacks and Race.” In Samuel Francis (ed.) Race and the American Prospect (Atlanta, GA: The Occidental Press, 2016); Kevin MacDonald “The ADL: Managing White Rage,” The Occidental Observer, December 7, 2009.

87 Charles E. Silberman, A Certain People: American Jews and Their Lives Today (New York: Summit Books, 1985), 350.

      Main Directory      

–– The Heretical Press ––