#24 On the Supply of and Demand for Right-Wing Academics

Is it rational to become a right-wing academic outcast?

There’s been a lot of hand-wringing lately about academia’s supposed "left-wing bias." And it’s true: academics, especially in the social sciences and humanities, tend to lean left. But this isn’t surprising. People with higher levels of education tend to be more cosmopolitan, more pro-immigration, more globalist. The trade-offs involved in pursuing an academic career — long training, lower pay than equivalent private sector jobs, and delayed job security — don’t usually appeal to people who prioritize wealth accumulation, at least in Europe and in the US outside the elite universities. The result is a self-selection process that tends to produce an overrepresentation of left-leaning individuals in the field. So, no, academia is not — and probably should not be — a mirror image of society. Most jobs aren’t allocated according to demographic quotas, and academia is no different. But this structural imbalance does create a unique kind of incentive.

We can think of academics as operating in multiple “fields” — as Bourdieu would say: academia itself, but also the media and maybe politics. As an academic, it may pay off within academia to be highly visible in the media or influential in policy circles, as universities are sometimes desperate to show “impact” beyond the ivory tower. Each field has its own rules of the game, and the strategies that may pay off in academia may pay off differently elsewhere.

Academics can seek to accumulate different forms of capital: academic credibility is acquired through good publications and research grants; media visibility through regular appearances in the media; and policy influence through holding significant positions within the state. The thing is, academia is what we can call a weakly autonomous field — the status of agents within the field can be decisively shaped by other fields. Having held a prominent job in government is sought after by universities to appoint someone as “professor of practice,” for instance. Academics visible in the media are a reasonably good way to advertise a university to future students, and sitting on a government expert panel looks good on the next research assessment report.

Pursuing the former can be called an internal upward strategy, while seeking to advance one’s career in academia through media or policy prominence can be called an external advancement strategy. There are trade-offs. It is difficult to do all of these well — publishing in top journals while also doing lots of media or policy work. It’s possible to endanger one’s academic credibility by appearing too much in the media on a variety of topics one doesn’t really master, or by compromising oneself with political actors who may force us to depart from the norms of the academic field.

But the differences in the rules of the game across fields create a specific incentive structure. Media logic relies heavily on “balance.” If 80% of academics are left-wing and 20% are right-wing, but the media wants to present a 50/50 view, the demand for right-wing academics far exceeds their actual supply. The same is true in the policy world, where think tanks, advisory roles, and punditry slots are often looking for contrarian or “dissenting” voices. Say the value of a left-wing academic is 50/80 and of a right-wing academic 50/20. This creates an asymmetric payoff structure.

Thinking about this as a market, left-wing academics compete in a saturated field. Right-wing academics, on the other hand, occupy a niche. Their value is amplified by their scarcity. For those with an eye on media relevance or political influence — especially if they’ve hit a ceiling within academia — drifting rightward can be a rational strategic move. Given these structural characteristics, it is possible to highlight a structure of payoffs corresponding to different political positions as an academic. Let us assume, just for the sake of argument, that political positioning is chosen strategically (which it is probably not).

➤ Option A: Align with Dominant (Left-Leaning) Academic Norms For scholars who align with the dominant left-leaning norms within academia, the rewards are primarily concentrated in the form of academic capital. Integration into peer networks tends to be easier, with a smoother fit in departmental cultures and research communities. Publishing in mainstream journals is generally more attainable, especially in disciplines where progressive frameworks and critical theories are dominant. This alignment translates into higher professional stability and legitimacy within the field. However, media capital is relatively hard to acquire for those who follow this path. Because many scholars adopt similar ideological positions, the media perceives them as less distinctive, and their voices may get lost in an oversaturated market of left-leaning experts. The demand for balance in public discourse means they are often passed over in favor of rarer contrarian viewpoints. In terms of policy capital, the influence is moderate. Scholars in this position often participate in advisory roles, public reports, and think tanks, but mostly within center-left policy circles. While this path carries low reputation risk within academia, it also limits one’s visibility in broader public and political arenas. Overall, this leads to a traditional academic trajectory marked by high institutional safety but relatively narrow reach beyond the academy.

➤ Option B: Position Yourself as Right-Leaning or Contrarian Choosing to position oneself as a moderate right-leaning or contrarian voice comes with distinct trade-offs. In terms of academic capital, this path is riskier. Scholars may face marginalization, where conservative views are often unwelcome. Fewer hiring opportunities and greater scrutiny in peer review can be expected, and such scholars are often perceived as ideological rather than scientific, regardless of the rigor of their work. That said, the potential for accumulating media capital is significantly higher. Media outlets, especially those committed to "both-sides" coverage, are actively looking for right-leaning academics to balance public debates. As a result, contrarian scholars may be more likely to receive invitations to participate in interviews, panels, and op-eds. Their perspectives, being relatively rare in academia, stand out and are in high demand. This is accentuated by the fact that what determines impact outside academia is not necessarily prestige within academia, but a) having appeared in the media before and b) having the ability to answer the phone every time. When it comes to policy capital, this position can be highly advantageous — particularly if the scholar aligns with right-leaning or centrist political actors. Access to conservative think tanks, advisory roles in government, or influence within public debates is often more direct. While there is a moderate to high reputation risk within the academic field — due to potential ostracism or lack of institutional support — this is frequently offset by increased visibility, influence, and opportunities in the public and policy spheres. The result is a hybrid career trajectory that may involve some marginalization in academic circles but greater access to platforms outside them.

➤ Sub-Branch (Option B): Go “Full Contrarian” A more extreme version of Option B involves going “full contrarian” — adopting highly provocative, reactionary, or culture war positions that go beyond moderate conservatism. In this case, academic capital can collapse entirely, if it was acquired in the first place. The individual may become persona non grata within their discipline, facing rejection from peers. But it can be a strategy precisely adopted by individuals whose positions or limited academic rigour have made it difficult to progress within academia. On the flip side, media capital can skyrocket — especially in right-wing or populist media ecosystems. Figures who take this route can become fixtures on TV panels, podcasts, and op-ed pages, celebrated not for their scholarly rigor but for their ideological clarity and confrontational tone. In some cases, this also leads to increased policy capital, particularly when right-wing political parties or populist movements are in power and seek intellectual justification for their platforms. However, the reputation risk in academia is extremely high, and relationships with universities or colleagues may be irreparably damaged. The likely career trajectory here shifts away from academia entirely and toward media punditry, public advocacy, or policy advising from the outside. While the rewards in visibility and political influence can be considerable, they come at the cost of credibility and legitimacy within the scholarly field.

To be clear, this doesn’t mean everyone doing so is purely opportunistic. But it’s interesting to think about some of these incentives. And as long as media and policy spaces reward ideological “diversity” differently than academia does, the supply and demand dynamics will continue to push a small but visible number of academics to the right.