Today’s Sociology: Ideology and Partisan Advocacy
Sociology, a once flourishing field, has become a highly politicized discipline which sacrifices scientific rigor and a commitment to finding objective truth for ideology, partisan advocacy and advancing a social justice agenda. Sociology, at least in the US since roughly 1990, has become a “damaged brand”, unloved and distrusted by broad sections of American society, including those best positioned to influence social policy.
Undoubtedly, many questions in the domain of sociology are important and worthy of scientific study. Sociology was and should be an important and valuable field. However, the discipline has become so rotten - with really ideological, incompetent or unethical people deeply embedded within it - that any correction from its current trajectory seems unlikely.
Why should this concern us? It is connected to the larger problem of the corruption of academia and the social sciences and its consequences for policy and society. When in 2023, Supreme Court Justice Jackson referenced in a decision the false (and obviously implausable) claim that survival rates for black newborns double when they have black physicians, the consequences of a distorted sociology were made abundantly clear.
Mendacity Embraced and Everything is Furiously Spun From the Start in the Direction Desired
After decades of teaching and research, the prominent sociologist Alexander Riley reached this mordant conclusion about the state of his discipline:
“Today, sociology treats complex and contested questions with the most simplified framework imaginable. All questions about human life are now equations of victims and victimizers and the mechanisms by which the powerful oppress the powerless. No alternative explanatory models for the empirical outcomes we see in the world are entertained or even acknowledged as legitimate. All evidence that cannot be adequately twisted to fit the storyline is ignored. Outright mendacity about empirical matters is embraced, details of cases are occluded, and everything is furiously spun from the start in the direction desired.”
Sociology’s faculty, professional associations, graduate programs and to a large degree journals are all complicit. Dissident sociologists keep their heads down. The question has come up in various circles whether sociology can be saved or reformed. Many believe that the solution is to have other disciplines address the scientific questions that used to be in the wheelhouse for sociology and criminology. This is already happening. Some sociology is getting done by people not trained in sociology. They are loyal to the content, not to its professional manifestation.
PART ONE: SOCIOLOGY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE
Sociology is Fake Social Justice: Social Justice Without Economic Class.
Sociology has long attracted egalitarians and people interested in making the social world better and more fair to those who have suffered from discrimination. They regarded themselves as natural experts on questions of the general good and social justice. Historically sociology aligned with the ‘Old Left’ which focused on improving life for low income and ‘marginalized’ people of all backgrounds. They studied economic inequality without assuming a moral obligation of society to arrange itself so that all groups are equal on socially valued outcomes
By contrast, the dominant concern of today’s ‘woke’ sociology is achieving outcome equality for groups defined by their race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, immigration status, indigeneity and physical ability. When sociology departments, advocate “dismantling structures and ideologies that uphold, normalize, naturalize, and legitimate/justify all forms of inequality”, this is in the context of promoting DEI not advocating wealth redistribution. Egalitarian economics and liberal progressive universalism has been replaced by tribalism and competitive victimhood.
Critical Theory and Intersectionality Underlie Woke Sociology
The origin, definition and core tenets of wokism are contested and what it denotes is not always clear. Political scientist Eric Kaufman provides a general definition of woke as ‘the sacralization of historically disadvantaged race, gender and sexual identity groups’. While the term ‘wokeness’ may be receding in popular discourse, woke practices remain firmly entrenched in higher education. The culture and bureacracy inside universities are deeply engrained.
Woke people believe that our current society is extremely racist, sexist, discriminatory and homophobic. The remedy is group outcome equality. Woke precepts, as manifested in academic sociology are:
Everything (including science and academia) is racist, sexist, hetero, colonial and about power struggle between the oppressors and oppressed.
Existing social inequalities and unequal representation are due to currently existing structural racism and sexism. (Structural racism is distinct from overt racist behavior and interpersonal discrimination because it is systemic and does not require individual actors with awareness or intent)
Everything (including science and education) needs to be dismantled and rebuilt to ensure Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI)
The oppressor is defined according to their position in the intersectionality power spectrum. The dominant group is racist, but anyone who is not part of the dominant group cannot be racist.
An oppressor is inherently unable to appreciate information presented by an oppressed victim person.
Those who are not with us are against us and must be punished
Underlying woke sociology are the philosophies of critical theory, intersectionality and ultimately Marxism. In the Buckingham statement Kaufmann defines wokeism as 'a contingent historical episode’ that needs to be studied just as scholars have sought to explain the rise of nationalism and communism. From an historical perspective ere is a ‘Woke Era’, just as there was a Progressive Era and Civil Rights Era.
Intersectionality is a central pillar of wokeism. It sees forms of oppression as linked, reinforcing and multiplying into a forest of trauma. Complicated issues are reduced to articles of faith. Although not all sociologists are in the critical social justice camp, the majority actively support or have passively acquiesced to their discipline as an activist field with a grievance-based social justice mission.
Universities Should be Neutral and Pluralistic
Higher education should aim to foster the development of students’ independent and critical thinking skills. Universities should be institutionally neutral and pluralistic, providing students with the conceptual tools for understanding the world.
There are always good arguments on both sides of any complex issue, and no single perspective has a monopoly on truth. What is ‘socially just’ or the best path to social betterment are not clear and easily agreed upon.
Ideas and beliefs should be freely and openly discussed, and conflicting viewpoints should be presented in a fair and dispassionate manner. Students learn the most from ideas that make them uncomfortable. This is how progress is made. Moreover, as the oft-cited John Stuart Mill points out, it is important to hear competing opinions in their most plausible and persuasive forms from people who believe them.
Current sociology falls far short of these standards. Presenting only one point of view breeds confirmation bias, groupthink and pressure to conform. It also weakens one’s own arguments because they are not challenged.
Sociology: The Academy’s Progressive Vanguard
While progressive dogmas have increasingly constricted the social sciences their grip is strongest in sociology which is teeming with woke fanatics and almost entirely conservative-free. There are almost three times more far-left faculty in sociology than in psychology or political science. In a systematic review of studies, Professor Yenor shows that liberal sociologists outnumber conservatives by forty-seven to one. Almost no one is openly right of center. One study found zero Republicans. Another found 12 conservative sociologists out of 6,000 in the US. Right of center sociologists are vastly outnumbered by self-identified “Marxists”. Thousands of sociology books and articles have been written from Left persepctives including Marxist, liberal, progressive, feminist, intersectionalist, radical, and post-modernist. To date, however, very few have been written from a conservative perspective.
Universities Search for Conservative Sociologists
Even finding a conservative sociologist is an arduous task. Both new ‘heterodox’ universities created for viewpoint diversity (e.g. University of Austin) and conservative-leaning centers recently set up within established universities struggle to find sociologists. A new center at a major public university created by the state’s Republican legislature is full of conservatives and moderates from law, history, political science, and even anthropology. They have been unable to find a single sociologist in the field who would be mission-aligned.
PART TWO: ACADEMIC SOCIOLOGY - THEORY AND RESEARCH
Sociologists Start with a Conclusion and Find Evidence That Supports It
Sociological studies are rightly criticized for beginning with their conclusion and, working backwards, finding evidence that they think backs it up. The oppressive nature of society is given. Basic ideological parameters e.g. pervasive structural racism, are assumed from the outset and remain unquestioned. Systemic bias and the oppression of marginalized people are taken for granted - all analyses proceed from there. Methods are rigged to arrive at these ideologically preferred conclusions. Statistical malfeasance, evidence cherry-picking and intellectual dishonesty are common.
A majority of sociologists believe that sociology “should analyze and transcend oppression”. In pursuit of this, they employ a progressive epistemology which judges the veracity of scientific findings as to how well they fit the prevailing narratives. The standard of evidence is different depending on what you are arguing. This is in contrast to the norms of science (disinterestedness, skepticism, universalism) put forward by Weber and Merton, and practiced by many sociologists in the past.
Findings That Run Counter to Wokeness are Either not Reported or Rejected by Reviewers
Professor Eppard documents how sociologists frequently make big claims that have a weak to nonexistent evidentiary claims. These include claims about systemic racism, implicit bias, police shootings, microagressions, sexism, sex differences, transgender issues, single parenthood and more. Sociologists refrain from reporting findings that question these claims. As eminent sociologist Mark Mizruchi points out:
“Seemingly smart people seem to lose all critical perspective when findings accord with their worldview and/or political perspective. When a sociologist has the guts to report findings that question the accepted wisdom, however, he or she is typically excoriated, regardless of the quality of the work. In these cases, many of the same people who uncritically accepted more "palatable" findings on the same topic suddenly become fierce and incisive critics.”
It is especially difficult to publish results that are considered harmful to marginalized groups (e.g. studies that do not find evidence of bias/unfair treatment but instead find differences in risks/behaviors).
An oft-cited example of the difficulty of reporting findings in opposition to the accepted orthodoxy is Robert Putnam’s finding that social trust is lower in ethnically diverse communities. He held off publishing his results until he could think up ways to make them politically palatable.
It is not uncommon for there to be hundreds of published studies which support ideologically favored theories and conclusions, but few that question or refute them. For example, skepticism of claims that minorities get treated more severely for the same behavior is not allowed. Nor can you challenge ‘the skin tone hypothesis’ that people with darker skin tones always face discrimination. A study finding better outcomes for darker-skinned South Asian Americans was rejected for publication. The same paper was accepted later when the authors did not mention the skin tone hypothesis.
Sociology does not Take Personal Agency Seriously
A major problem with his field, distinguished sociologist Orlando Patterson points out,
“is that it does not take personal agency seriously. It remains highly suspicious of all notions of personal initiative and responsibility. Indeed, it is routine to castigate anyone foolish enough to take agency seriously as a reactionary bent on blaming the victim.”
The singular focus on structure is most apparent in research on race relations where simplistic explanatory frameworks based on structural and systemic racism (and now ‘metaracism’) are the only permitted way to frame most problems. They are also the only way to explain group differences. Plausible alternative explanations are ignored.
Systemic/structural racism, if and where it exists, is undoubtably hard to pin down. Sociologists have an explanation for this too? “A great deal of energy”, sociologist Tricia Rose, explains, “has gone into making systemic racism invisible”. The possibility of individuals taking personal actions to avoid negative outcomes is not taken into consideration.
The hypocrisy of sociologists who push structural racism is hard to miss. On one hand they celebrate the social movements in which people have been involved to show how people have agency and can change the system. On the other hand, they simultaneously deny that members of these groups have any agency in what sometimes happens to them.
The Topics Sociologists Study are Slanted Toward Their Political Perspective
It is widely acknowedged that the topics that social scientists choose to study are influenced by their conception of the most important social values. This is especially consequential in sociology where conservatives are nearly absent. A noteable example is migration research where studies overwhelmingly address the rights, well-being and changes occuring to the immigrants and their descendants. They all concentrate on supposed glory of multi-culturalism rather than the downside such as social cohesion, fiscal and infrastructure strain, and mass migration as a source of tension and conflict.
Migration Studies
Migration studies are characterized by numerous articles on topics such as ‘rethinking queer migration’, ‘rebordering’ and ‘the transnational far right’, but little discussion of the cultural side of immigration, their impact on the receiving societies, or the socially optimal level of migration. Even raising these questions can result in censure. When a student project on immigrant experiences was described as ‘more advocacy than scholarship’, the student claimed racism. Sadly, this is business as usual given the power of the ultra-left in sociology. To people looking at it from the outside, the behavior of the academic community appears bizarre; the adults have fled the campus and a bunch of children are left denouncing each other.
There is also little research examing the views of the legally residing immigrants themselves. This is a topic I know well since I have worked since 2018 as a low wage retail worker at a large store with mostly Hispanic workers and customers.
(It may also be a revelation to sociologists that the views of ‘oppressed Hispanic and Black people’ differ dramatically from those of the academic, activists, politicians and journalists who claim to speak for them. I have also yet to meet one Hispanic coworker who isn’t repulsed by the term ‘Latinx’, which sociologists unceasingly use. What ethnic group wants to be ‘x’d out, or be assigned an unpronouncable name that sounds like a porn site).
Socology’s Totalizing Focus on White Men Versus the Rest
Rather than focusing on the biases of everyone toward everyone, sociologists manifest a totalizing cultural socialist focus on white men versus the rest. Examples include:
The almost complete absence of work on Black on Black crime;
Educational studies with the predetermined conclusion is that racism alone explains why Blacks and Hispanics do worse; (There is little explanation for why Asians and Jews do so well other than White privilege. Studies that emphasize culture are dismissed as ‘essentialist’)
Discrimination studies where the singular focus is on Islamophobia in the USA with no discussion of forms of discrimination in Islamic and other societies.
Studies of the education system that blame White teachers for perpetrating “slow violence” in the classroom “against Black, Latinx, Asian, immigrant, fat, trans and disabled children”.
The Family Wars
In a value-neutral sociology, it is important to study both the weakening of the traditional family structure and the emergence of same-sex and other non-traditional family types. The distinguished family demographer Linda Waite - one of the few sociologists who publicly criticized her discipline - has correctly noted that researchers need to understand the outcomes of different family types without supporting or opposing them.
However, the enforced consensus in sociology is that these changes should only be celebrated. When family sociologist David Popenoe found that alternative family forms, particularly those that lack a strong father, may have serious disadvantages for children, the incensed mob kicked into action. A top journal relunctantly published his results only after finding several respondents to slam them. Sociologist Mark Regnerus nearly had his career ruined by publishing unacceptable findings - more on this later.
The ideology of left-feminism, which views marriage as an oppressive patriarchal institution and resists looking at human behavior as biologically determined, has always been dominant in sociology. Recently, the wokeist strain of feminism, which views diverse families as yet another manifestation of intersectional oppression, has gained prominence. Hence the proliferation of courses such as “Decolonizing Queer Families in the White Supremacist Manosophere”.
Sociology’s Woke Theory of Racialization
Sociologists define ‘racialization’ as the process of embedding race (a socially constructed identity) into all kinds of social groups, structures, and engagements. It is said to operate in ways that are invisible to those designated as white. Originally gaining traction in the study of organizations, policing and healthcare, racialization theory is now used to examine vast a wide range of subject area including emotions, pedagogy, discourse, and risk. Men, modernity, normative congruence, twitter data, and ‘agentic self-expression’ are all racialized - as, of course, are college hookups and ‘attraction among white spouses’.
Racialization also explains disparate outcomes. Latinos have lower incomes, one scholar maintains, because ‘the logic of social mobility is racialized’. Sociologists also examine racialized ‘expectations management’, time burdens, higher education resource hoarding and cultural capital - all of which purportedly keep subordinated racialized groups oppressed. (But ignores why Asian-Americans and other ‘racialized’ groups have higher incomes). This bizarre cultural Marxism is enough to make a cat laugh. Many sociologists realize this, but few have the guts to speak out.
The term ‘racialize/d’, when used as a verb and adjective, is particularly insulting and condescending in that it implies that being racialized (non-white) is something which has been inflicted upon people. Academics who adopt this ridiculous term, whether they realize it or not, have agreed to the (encoded) half-baked critical theory truth claims about race relations. (There's a term that's even more obnoxious than - and equally amorphous as - racialized: "minoritized.")
Several sociologists have told me that this nonsense is not pervasive in the field. However, the terms ‘racialized’ and ‘racialization’ appeared 67 times in the titles of presentations at the 2025 ASA meetings, often by faculty and graduate students at the highest status departments.
Top Sociology Journals Publishing ‘Absolute Crap’: The Consequences
When sociological findings - distorted by ideology - get the causal connections wrong, their policy recommendations, if implemented, prove ineffective or counterproductive - harming the people they were intended to help. As the eminent economist, Glenn Loury points out “only a sociologist would believe that 70 percent of kids being born out of wedlock in a community is not a bad thing in terms of development”. This corruption envelopes most the discipline. It is rotten to the core. Publishers prohibit the publication of research that might reflect badly on a racial group. The peer review process is ideologically biased; extremely weak papers, due to their woke-aligned claims, become modern sociological "classics”. Unconvincing studies are are feted without critique.
Even the respected statistician Andrew Gelman, usually friendly to sociology, had enough when a top sociology journal, Demography, published an article which he called ‘a hack job’ and ‘absolute crap’. The article claimed that Trump’s 2016 election led to increased birth defects for non-white mothers. Gelman pondered “how this sort of paper with weak science and a crude political agenda can get published in legitimate journals”. A mystery for the ages.
PART THREE: CONSERVATIVE VIEWS IN SOCIOLOGY
Conservative Sociology Professors and Students Face Censorship, Mobbing and Moral Denunciation
Professor Jussim compiled 13 privileges which progressive professors enjoy. Foremost among these is the ability to conduct research without colleagues publishing “scientific articles” claiming that they are are deficient in intelligence and morality because of their political beliefs.
The discrimination against conservatives is most pronounced in sociology where conservatives, particularly cultural conservatives, are thought to be morally deficient. They face a hostile climate including isolation and ridicule. Right of center perspectives on contentious issues are denounced, belittled, and kept out of prestigious journals and course curricula. As sociology professor Mark Horowitz’ survey of sociologists shows, sociologists hoping for tenure should keep any conservative views to themselves, especially since an increasing number of departments are expanding the criteria of the tenure and promotion process to include “supporting engaged social justice and community-engaged scholarship.
Sociologists Forbid Any Conclusion That Strikes Them as a ‘Social Injustice’.
Sociologists take an inquisitorial stance against anyone who investigates a taboo subject, reaches a politically incorrect conclusion or supports a practice or outcome that strikes them as a ‘social injustice’. Entire disciplines like economics are frequently disregarded because they don’t properly address power imbalances and violate sociology’s enforced consensus that social problems solely arise from “structural conditions”. Sociology’s aversion to biological (so-called "reductionist") explanations commonly operates as an informal ethos limiting what can be said in seminars, asked at lectures or incorporated into social theory.
Moderate and liberal faculty also water down their views, shy away from controversial topics and avoid situations where they would have to reveal their true beliefs. They are careful to approach 'permitted’ topics in ideologically acceptable ways. Transgressing the field’s moral sensibilities, defying the language police or veering from the prevailing orthodoxy has resulted in shaming, ridicule, cancelled courses, retracted articles, and even the denial of tenure and loss of one’s job and reputation.
Inquisition: Penalties Serve to Punish Offenders and Intimidate Potential Transgressors.
Sociologists are taught to be social advocates and wear their ideology on their sleeves. Many are not not just ideologically outspoken; they are extremists. For those who dare cross them, the consequences for those can be severe.
Paul Allison, a well-regarded sociologist who held deep Christian convictions took a position on a ‘value issue’ that cost him his candidacy for a promotion. Another conservative Christian sociologist, Mike Adams, made controversial tweets and comments which were no less offensive than the tweets of hundreds of woke sociologists (to which no one batted an eye). In response, nearly 270 sociology professors and graduate students from across the country issued a statement calling for his firing. Subject to harassment and persistent baseless accusations, he later killed himself.
Among sociology’s holy trinity of race, gender and ethnicity, race is the most sacred and inviolable. Jon Rieder, a white sociology prof at Barnard, used the N-word when quoting a rapper in one of his classes. Despite Columbia luminary and New York Times columnist, John McWhorter’s strenuous objections to “theatrically contrived claims of racial harm”, he ended-up having his course cancelled after some black students complained.
Andreas Wimmer, the Lieber Professor of Sociology at Columbia, published an article arguing that sociologists sometimes overuse race to analyze things, pointing out that race is not the best framework for understanding a lot of social problems. His goal was to make sociology more effective at understanding genuinely racialized problems. Someone published a rejoinder calling him a racist. No one came to his aid.
Violations of woke gender rules, no matter how minor, can result in harrassment and denunciation from the woke mob. Respected sociology professor, Nicholas Wolfinger had the audacity to disparage an article whose authors happened to be women. A masters student in a different department called him a sexual predator. He respondeded with a benign but intemperate tweet which was called ‘threatening’. The mob kicked into action. Faculty from around the world demanded that he be punished for “punching down,” with some announcing their intention to alert his university about the monster in its midst. Though not entirely vindicated (he was convicted of failure to be collegial), Professor Wolfinger is still teaching and courageously wrote a book encouraging other professors who had also been subject to harrassment to tell their stories.
Radical Sociologist is Furious a Christian Professor Besmirched Her University
When University of Texas sociologist, Mark Regnerus, reached a ‘wrong conclusion’ in an LGBT related study, his research was immediately discredited. He was called a “propagandist for heterosexual marriage who disguises his ideological biases behind a smoke screen of social science”. Over 200 sociologists signed a letter questioning his motives and integrity, and vilifying his character. A UT colleague commented:
“I am disturbed by his irresponsible and reckless representation of social science research, and furious that he is besmirching my university to lend credibility to his ‘findings’…Pseudo-science that demonizes gay and lesbian families contributes to stress, and is not good for children.”
It is possible that Professor Regnerus's gay parenting study had problems and was influenced by his personal beliefs. What is not in doubt is that the ASA as an organization, not to mention hordes of sociologists, viciously attacked him in a hyperbolic, nasty and ridiculous way. They couldn't accept the possibility that kids raised by gay couples, other things being equal, might experience more difficulties than kids raised by straight couples. Convinced they are on the right side of history, they have no compunction bullying, demonizing and threatening those who step out of line. The University of Texas completed its inquiry finding no evidence of wrongdoing.
Professor Violated the Woke Tenet of ‘Positionality’ by not Checking Her Privilege.
A notable bullying episode occurred when the (politically liberal) white sociologist Alice Goffman conducted a field study in a black community. An anonymous accuser sent an email to hundreds of sociologists alerting them at this white woman had violated the woke tenet of ‘positionality’ by not checking her privilege. Only victims themselves are capable of having true insight into other victims. They alone are equipped to do meaningful research in those areas.
The severe rebukes styfle researchers and serve as a warning to potential transgressors.
Punished for Having the Wrong Facial Expression
While exhibiting the narcissistic or ‘white mans’ gaze are established transgressions on woke campuses, having the wrong facial expression is also a punishable offence. In her Boston University sociology class, the path-breaking social theorist Liah Greenfeld was reported to university authorities by students who thought that her facial expression indicated that she did not approve of LGBT. The BU administration encouraged students to anonymously report on their classmates and professors. For a semester, the Dean and chairman of the sociology department sat in on every class and watched her face. One would think they’d have something better to do.
PART FOUR: THE SOCIOLOGY CLASSROOM
The Classroom as a Forum for Indoctrinating Students
Sociology pedagogy is all too often political advocacy under the guise of objective science. Pious professors present complex issues only through the lens of oppressor and victim, proselytizing students and forcing them to buy their ideology and pseudoscientific theories such as microaggressions and methods for ferreting out racism in the subconscious of white people.
Sociology Classroom: Every Course Allows You To Unpack Your Privileges
Many sociology departments exult in promoting their activist and social justice mission, e.g. Rollins College, which boasts that their goal is to make the world more fair. Every course in their department, they advertise, “incorporates sociological training that will allow you to unpack your privileges, understand oppression, and find a way to keep doing the work without paralyzing yourself in guilt”. The University of the Redlands regards sociology as “a liberatory enterprise”.
Within departments, sociologists create novel ideologically aligned minors (“solidarity and social justice”), and politically partisan programs and institutes. A survey of sociologists concluded that it is an “ideal discipline for teaching and embodying DEI tenets”. The physical space of the classroom is “a sacred, inclusive place of belonging”. The course topics, readings, and assignments “should all be infused with a DEI sensibility”.
Convinced of their moral mandate, they are not open to learning from conservatives whom they construe as hostile partisans, not worth a moment’s attention. Intellectual engagement, ideological cohabitation and agreeing well are not acceptable. Professor Riley describes how whenever a sociology major shows up in one of his classes he has to:
“spend significant time just convincing them that a good deal of what they have been led to believe is taken-for-granted truth about the world by the orthodox malpractitioners of social science must in fact be defended, and indeed that much of it is indefensible, at least if one wants to remain in the realm of the real.”
After 2025, as the excesses of wokeness become more apparent and its power constrained by court decisions, most sociologists continued to double down on their status as ‘social justice experts’ and embattled victims. Shortly before his death, legendary Professor Burawoy, stressed the need to defend sociology as a ‘moral science’.
Sociology Course Offerings: A Sea Change in What Counts as Scholarship
Historically, sociology courses concentrated on established subfields such as family, ethnic relations, social movements, etc. As the field radicalized, ideas that had been percolating for many years on the periphery of the field, moved to center stage. Post-modernism and other intellectual movements resulted in a sea change in what counted as scholarship. The very possibility of value-neutrality and objective knowledge was called into question, thereby providing legitimization for sociologists to become advocates.
Courses in established specialties like ‘Marriage and the Family’ disappeared from catalogues, replaced by the likes of ‘Patriarchy and the Manosphere’, ‘Decolonizing Queer Kinship’ and ‘Sexuality as a System of Whiteness’. Criminal justice became ‘Reparative Justice’ and ‘Carceral Studies’. Urban gentrification has become ‘White Space Making’.
The woke-aligned course offering “How to Steal”, instructs sudents to “examine theft through the lens of capitalism, colonialism, and morality”. In the class, they “visit grocery stores, banks, libraries, and museums, which the course identifies as places where “‘capital is hoarded and value is contested’.”
In parallel, traditionally vibrant fields like medical sociology and social psychology have shrunk dramatically. The once productive field of ethnography was overrun by deconstructionists and woke activists who held that only researchers of an oppressed group can authentically write about their experiences. A rich tradition of insightful participant-observation studies fell out of favor. The line between scholarship and indoctrination and activism became blurred.
The Classroom as a Space of Counter-Hegemony
The sociology classroom serves as a safe space, “a space of counter-hegemony” and a site where “knowledge can be reclaimed as a tool for liberation rather than exclusion”. No one should feel uncomfortable. To illustrate, a white male professor, nervous about teaching a class on race and ethnicity sought advice on Reddit as to how to approach:
“the challenges of positionality and be mindful of the dynamics of power and privilege while ensuring the class remains a rigorous, critically engaged space”.
The Reddit responders emphasized the need for a safe space and to avoid speaking from a white person’s point of view:
“Don’t come across as too personally ashamed or apologetic when discussing these things”.
This woke nonsense is not knowledge. It is more like therapy and doomed to fail as an educational venture.
The Classroom is a Minefield
The sociology classroom is a minefield. All it takes is one student from an oppressed group to say you are making their life bad by your presence there, or that you are putting forward objectionable ideas to land you in the penalty box.
Frequently graduate students stop working with professors who develop a reputation of being a ‘conservative’. The few who remain interested are often shunned. Students are impacted in other ways. A self-described ‘apolitical’ graduate student specializing in the sociology of sports reported unwanted faculty pressure to engage in politics.
Conservative Views are Largely Ignored in the Classroom
In the classroom, conservative views are largely ignored. When given a hearing they are presented weakly or misrepresented to ensure their immediate dismissal. Students who challenge orthodox claims have been shouted down or shamed merely for expressing opinions that do not align with the dominant views. A pernicious groupthink (encompassing belief in their moral superiority and being on the right side of history, stereotyping of out-groups, etc.) closes off the possibility of rich debates on the interplay of social, economic and cultural forces.
PART FIVE: THE CULT OF SOCIOLOGY
The Cult of Sociology: A Tribal Moral Community
Sociology embodies what Professor Haidt calls an academic ‘tribal moral community’. It also bears all the earmarks of a cult. According to Professor Smith, one of sociology’s ‘mystical beliefs’ is that gender and sexuality are fluid and socially constructed, but people are also born gay or trans. Sociology’s taboos include:
Anything that challenges blank slatism or the idea that human beings and societies are and should be infinitely malleable.
Any comparison of social groups that reflects disfavorably on the preferred group or seems to favor the dominant group.
Anything that could blame minority populations for things we think of as bad or that could provide useful ammunition to ‘bad’ political actors.
A Warm and Welcoming Community
Examples of cult-like behavior abound. One sociology department calls itself a “community for social change, social justice, and equality” with “supportive peers”. A sociologist observes that his colleagues “comprise an emotive left progressive community with shared norms and a tribal loyalty to sacralized victims.” Another describes a “warm and welcoming community”. Sociologists view themselves as compassionate and committed to social amelioration and the ‘defense of humanity’. Professor McCaffrey notes that students select sociology as a major because they want to change the world and usher in a utopian society where no racism, sexism, ableism, classism or discrimination of any kind exists.
A University of Michigan sociology 2023 “Major of the Month” explains that “sociology makes it feel possible to dismantle even the most legitimate-seeming structures of power in our society, and reimagine their purpose and function to create a better future”.
Redditor user Bourgeoisetrashlord explains how she distanced herself from her old friends when she started studying sociology:
“I tried to find community with people who felt similar to me. I hung out with sociology majors and joined organizations working on issues that I was most passionate about, and that's how I made my friends”.
Sociology as Religious Experience: “Learned Nada, Had a Good Belly Laugh Though!”
In a TED talk with 743K views, sociologist Sam Richards described his conversion to sociology as a religious experience. Before studying sociology, he believed that “happiness could only come from his own destiny free from the influences of others”. Then he began studying sociology and reached the profound conclusion that “everything is shaped by factors and forces outside of your control that you will never see, nor will you ever understand. Your freedom is an illusion…. This is life changing”. Enraptured viewers bore witness:
“Sociology empowers people to survive in life. It's like someone pats your shoulder whenenver you feel like you're giving up”.
“Sociology literally saved my life”.
“I felt COMPLETE for the first time”.
“Sociology is like a best friend”.
Not everyone was converted. “Yikes”, a viewer exclaimed, “looks like he is holding prayer beads”. Another left dispirited: “learned nada, had a good belly laugh though”.
The ‘Sociological Lens: Expose Hidden Truths
Sociologists teach that society operates on the basis of invisible power structures that those trained in the field are best qualified to detect. Departmental mission statements exult how the ‘sociological lens’ is “where we make the strange familiar’ and critical for ‘opening your eyes’ so you can see problems clearly and eliminate inequality.
Sociologists created an esoteric vocabulary for ‘exposing hidden truths’ and showing students “the inner-workings of things they experience every day”. They augment the existing woke lexicon with novel terms such as:
Agnotology: The deliberate creation of ignorance
Racelighting: Phrases that sound neutral or even caring but are really psychological manipulation that causes individuals to question their lived racial experiences.
Misogynoir: The interaction of anti-Black racism and misogyny.
One sociology professor introduced his class to the “sociological eye”, which “can never really be turned off”. The sociological eye is really special: “Not everyone can unlock it because not everyone has the capacity for it - if more people did, I believe that society would be a very different place. Use your sociological eye to try to improve the world around you, because we see structural issues, not a culmination of individual problems”.
Sociology’s Revered Canon
Most revered among sociology’s sacred texts is “The Sociological Imagination” by C. Wright Mills. A graduate student recalls how his professor “used to take out his dog-eared copy of the book and read passages out loud to me like a catechist”. Like the sociological ‘eye’ and ‘lens’, the vaporous ‘imagination’ is used to justify a field unable to stake out a turf of its own.
According to the current sociology guru, Pierre Bourdieu, sociology, allows you to “think in a completely astonished and disconcerted way about things you think you had always understood”. “It reveals that which is hidden”. Students lap this up.
Sociology, like other cults, rejects or ignores fact-based arguments opposed to their existing beliefs. Since it frowns on open discussions with adversaries, their bs arguments are allowed to circulate without being challenged. Their values come to seem valid to themselves because they never associate with anyone who disagrees with them. “Shut Up Oppressor”. I'm not going to engage. “He's evil”.
PART SIX: WHITE MAN’S GAZE
Dominated by the White Man's Gaze?
In an impassioned 2020 article, the ASA president made the ludicrous claim that sociology departments are very old, very white and “dominated by the white man's gaze”. The truth is the opposite. For a field obsessed with diversity and inclusion, the dearth of straight white men among sociology faculty and graduate students is striking. Today’s sociology is principally a women’s discipline at all levels, from undergraduate and doctoral students to faculty.
Even a casual glance at sociology department websites reveals that white men are a shrinking minority in the field. This is obvious, self-documenting and most evident among junior faculty and graduate students. White men typically comprise between 3 and 15 percent of sociology graduate students. The figures below are from late 2024:
At Johns Hopkins only 1 of 36 students is a white man.
Of Columbia’s 7 assistant professors and 17 incoming graduate students, one was a white man.
University of North Carolina: 6 of 50
Georgia: 1 of 33.
Yale: 4 of 44
Pick your department. The Lousiana State graduate student cohorts from 2017/2018 to 2024/2025 consisted of 37 students. Two were white men. Of the few white men studying or teaching sociology, a good percentage are Marxists or lay claim to another oppressed identity, such as LBGTQ.
White Men Reject Sociology’s Discrimination and Woke Ideology
Undoubtedly, white men have fled sociology due to the centrality of ideologies (‘white hetero patriarchal violence’, ‘white supremacy culture’ etc.) which designate this presumably most privileged segment of society as the permanent bad guys who “structure the surface of everyday life distorting the nature of truth and reality”. The booming subfield of “whiteness studies” portrays white Americans as complicit in perpetuating white supremacny. It is also hard to miss the proliferation of assigned texts such as: “White Male Mediocrity”, “White Supremacy, Patriarchy and Capitalism”, “White Man Falling”, “Angry White Men”, and “The White Man Victimhood of the Rabid Puppies”.
Ultimately, those white heterosexual men who complete the Ph.D program - without the benefit of race and gender-based scholarships - will be disfavored in the job market. If they get a job, promotions and competitive research grants will be harder to obtain. Despirte court rulings limiting race and ethnicity-based preferences, universities continue to game, skirt and flout the rules.
This reverse racism starts at the top of the profession. In the name of ‘resisting oppression’ and intervening in ‘socio-political struggles’, the American Sociological Association eliminated white men from leadership positions in 2010. It will take generations, they argue “to overcome sociology’s roots in Eurocentric white male supremacy”. The US regional sociology organizations followed suit. As of April, 2025, not one of the eight major smaller associations had a white man in leadership.
PART SEVEN: HISTORY OF SOCIOLOGY
Sociology’s Conservative Roots
In its early years, the sociology label conveyed something far from radical. Indeed, there are conservative strains in the thought of sociology’s founders (Weber, Durkheim, Spencer etc.) and its early ‘schools’.Automobile magnate Henry Ford established a Sociological Department in 1914 to supervise the workers private lives and impose and old-fashioned Protestant morality.
Even today there are remnants of these conservative roots. Some Ph.D sociologists outside universities hold views that would never be tolerated inside the academy. For example, the UK journalist and political advisor, Munira Mirza, has argued that multiculturalism accentuates differences between groups, and described the anti-racism movement as a "bogus moral crusade imported from the US with its demented campus dramas and neuroses about 'safe spaces', 'micro-aggressions' and 'cultural appropriation'".
Once Dominant Theory of Functionalism Embodied a Conservative View of Social Order
In the mid-20th Century, sociology’s dominant theoretical framework was structural functionalism which views society as a system of interrelated parts that work together toward the goal of stability and order. Although most sociologists were politically liberal, functionalism embodied a conservative view of social order. The prominent sociologist Kingsley Davis argued that inequality is a necessary and functional aspect of society, and a natural consequence of society's need to incentivize certain positions. This common sense and widely shared belief is somehow highly controversial in today’s version of reality.
Sociology’s Golden Age
During its golden age (roughly 1945-1975), sociology was a lively place, characterized by viewpoint diversity and the flourishing of creative thinkers (Kai Erickson, Erving Goffman, etc.) who offered original analyses of social problems addressing the “big questions”. These book-writing sociologists and ethnographers viewed their professional role as to understand the actions of others by putting themselves in their shoes (verstehen), not to advocate.
The Rise of Empirical and Value Neutral Sociology
In the 1960s and 70’s a new generation of sociologists became prominent. They believed in value-neutral sociology, and set aside their personal beliefs when conducting their studies. Mostly apolitical and quantitative, they were serious about using methodology properly and had high evidentiary norms. An outstanding example was pioneer sociologist Peter Rossi who had no special agendas and expressed a desire to improve life for everyone. Their research provided an empirical basis for assessing all kinds of institutional arrangements. Policy-makers paid attention. The Moynihan Report (1965) and Coleman Report (1966) had large impacts.
(Nonetheless, even in it's golden age, there were both radical sociologists who attacked dominant sociology as a handmaiden to oppressive state power, as well as a current of opposition who regarded sociology as an unsound and disreputable pseudoscience.)
The Ascendancy of the Radical Sociologists
Sociology was always sympathetic to social movements, and hospitable to students active in the various left-wing causes of the time. This tendency intensified in the late 1960s. The sociology of the 1940s to 1960s was attacked as being conservative and reactionary. Functionalism was repudiated for neglecting power imbalances and systemic oppression, and having biases which legitimize the status quo. The gatekeepers in Sociology began to cave to the growing number of radical sociologists. Stability and harmony were hardly desirable when the activist element is front and center and the goal is the total overturning of society. Sociology began its course to self-destruction.
By the 1980s, radical ideologues and feminists accelerated their colonization of the field. (The prevailing feminism in sociology is ideological because it is unbalanced and interested only in assigning blame according to its own theory - that they are oppressed by patriarchy which it assumes but does not defend).
According to Stephen Turner, the 1986 protests of a talk by sociologist James Coleman on white flight at the ASA meetings marked a key moment of the overt politicization of sociology. “It began to dawn on me”, Turner reflects, “that the degree of ideologization has gone so that the discipline is no longer a place in which rational discourse is possible”.
By the year 2000 the sociology insurgents of 1960s occupied the highest positions in the discipline. In 2004, ASA president Michael Burawoy mainstreamed the idea of public sociology, which sounds neutral but has a radical left wing activism agenda. Public sociology helped propel sociology from an empirical and theoretically-informed study of society to a field oriented toward exposing injustices. Once the activists took over, as Jonathan Turner observes, "scholars" were no longer accepting of intellectual diversity, and became willing to lie and cheat to realize their narrow goals.
American Sociological Association: Sociology’s Radical Governing Body
For decades sociology’s governing organization, the American Sociological Association (ASA) has ignored professional standards of scholarship and exhibited contemptuous disregard for members who do not share their extreme views. Their numerous ‘resolutions’ and political statements (passed with little discussion or debate) promoting their particular conception of social justice are extremely partisan, and outside the purview of any scholarly or professional association. (Other organizations such as the Society for the Study of Social Problems split off from the ASA because it was too conservative).
The ASA, which regards itself as scholar-activists and proudly claims the mantle of politically engaged activism, was outraged when the right-leaning state of Florida removed sociology from their required core course list. The ASA responded by claiming that sociologists are merely advancing the objective scientific study of social life. Sociologists claim to be activists until the moment you criticize them. Then they use science as a shield to legitimize their research in the language of the science they just got done telling you they reject.