The Higher Education System’s Dangerous Echo Chamber
V S Campbell
Someone asked me recently what I meant by the damaging “paradigm” shared by institutes of higher education. Nearly all public and private universities have the same mindset, and that is a problem because they represent an echo chamber that promotes and gives authority to only one point of view, liberalism. Even worse, our institutes of higher education have become focused on revenue and building enormous asset values by means of endowments from alumni. Yes, there are a few, like Hillsdale or others who have specialty focuses, but for the most part the are focused on income. They are business centers. Please keep in mind that I have worked as a consultant in much of that world, universities and research centers. They are extremely focused on revenue from grants and tuition, as well as on bequests. For instance, the endowment funds of universities in the United States total almost $900 billion dollars. In addition, in a recent year the universities in the United States had total revenues of $13.6 billion from athletic programs, and nearly $200 billion from research grants.
Higher education is big business.
In 2023, Deloitte published an article sub-titled “The traditional business model of higher education is broken…” In that paper it pointed out two issues, “First, the cost-value equation is misaligned.” Meaning that the cost of getting an education doesn’t relate to the amount of money graduates can earn. This has resulted in students taking on debt that they can’t afford after graduation. In an article published in April of 2025 in the website BestColleges, they provide data that “It would take the average male professional degree-completer about 15 and a half years to pay off his student loan debt if he spent 15% of his income on repayment. The average female professional degree-completer would take over 42 years.” For many students, the only greater budget expense they face after graduation is housing.
Second is the fertility issue and the declining population that has traditionally represented college education. The fact is, universities are simply going to run out of students due to migrant populations, fertility issues, the cost model issues they face, and an increased awareness that many people can make far more money going to a trade school or through an apprenticeship program and get paid for their education. The point is that educating students is no longer the primary business of our university system, business is their business.
The next thing I would share is that beginning in the 1960s, when I grew up, the college professors became populated by liberal radicals. There was a lot of unrest on college campuses as the liberal, Marxist influenced radicals, were seeking to overthrow the political system in the United States. They quickly determined that they could not do that by force, but they could infiltrate the Democrat party and work their way inside the education system, so to influence the youth. I will refer to a paper published in The Independent Review, A Journal of Political Economy. Volume 27, #3.
That article explains “The Hyper politicization of Higher Ed.” In that article it states that sixty percent of college faculty identify as “far left.”
My point is that higher education became more about ideological indoctrination and revenue than it did about education, per se. There is one specific example that I saw very clearly in the past four years. Beginning in 2020, I professionally reviewed more than 100 peer-reviewed papers regarding the use of hydroxychloroquine cocktails in the treatment of COVID-19. Keep in mind that the subject was well documented in 2000 following the SARS epidemic in India and Asia. Not one of those papers used the hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and zinc in the recommended combination. Not one. However, in the Journal of Medical Microbiology a paper was published in 2020 that stated: “zinc sulfate in combination with hydroxychloroquine may play a role in therapeutic management for COVID-19.”
Further, in an interview in 2020 with German professor Martin Scholz from Heinrich-Heine-University, Düsseldorf, Germany, published in MedicalResearch.com, the statement that “there are efficient and safe options for an early treatment of COVID-19 outpatients available. An early treatment at home within the first days after onset of symptoms might be highly efficient to avoid hospitalizations, an overwhelming of the health systems, and to save lives.” In that interview, the following study was cited: International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, Volume 56, Issue 6, 2020,106214, ISSN 0924-8579, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.106214.
Not one of those university studies used Zink in the prescribed manner, yet at that point it was known that it was the key that allowed the other two components to be effective. It was obvious to any one who could read papers that the studies were designed to fail. The point is that we knew that the pharma industry was funding these studies with grants to show that there were no viable treatments so they could get emergency use authorization for mRNA injections, which kept them from having to perform proper research and testing, and alleviated them from damage liability.
So, you ask about the paradigm of our university system. It is liberalism and avarice, with no voice for dissenting opinions, please refer to a Washington Times article of June 17, 2021, that states, “Cancel culture literally prohibits conservative voices on college campuses.”
One of the worst influences of the University Paradigm is the destruction of the family unit by emphasizing women have careers over being traditional wives, marketing student debt to fund their own industry. Women own 64% of the student loan debt in the United States. According to a 2021 AAUW paper titled “Deeper in Debt: Woman & Student Loans” female college graduates have a monthly income deficit of more than $500 monthly.
As volatile as the subject of traditional roles is, the truth remains that every culture influenced by western values is between 2 and 4 generations away from extinction because women are delaying child birth until they are in their mid-30’s and have reduced the numbers of children they are having to 1.5 and falling. No culture can survive a fertility of 1.5. It is mathematically and biologically impossible.
The question then becomes what next? What happens when there are no more people? Two theories have been put forth. One is that AI and robotics will replace most people with people becoming slaves to a machine world. While this sounds like an improbably sci-fi plot, the fact is that we are anticipating AGI, the point where AI becomes autonomous and self-directing, as soon as 2030.
The second theory is that slowly the world becomes Muslim, as that is the only culture in the world that is successfully reproducing.
Liberalism and the corrupt selling of the academic soul to industry for grants are two of the most obvious examples of the university paradigm that has damaged us so badly. The third is the promotion of feminism and reducing the role of women to corporate, tax paying workers instead of culture building homemakers.
References:
https://www.aauw.org/resources/research/deeper-in-debt
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jun/17/cancel-culture-literally-prohibits-conservative-vo
The following paper discusses the faulty promotion that hydroxychloroquine treatment is dangerous, and it also discusses the faulty nature of the studies that implied that the use of that treatment as either dangerous or ineffective.
https://bmccardiovascdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12872-024-04376-y
*https://wildcat.arizona.edu/157635/opinions/opinion-conservative-voices-on-my-campus-are-silenced-and-misrepresented*
https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/how-long-to-pay-off-student-loans/
Leave a Reply