American Gulags: Marxist Tyranny in Higher Education and What to Do About It, authored by Oliver North and his co-authors, positions itself as a crucial critique of the state of American higher education, presenting it as a battlefield in the ongoing culture wars. The dust jacket boasts the impressive collective credentials of the authors, who have penned over 109 books, some bestsellers. Despite this, my initial encounter with their work left me disinclined to seek out a second. The book, published by Fidelis Publishing in late May, fails to deliver on its provocative title, proving to be more of a disappointment than a revelatory exposé.
The title American Gulags suggests a bold, albeit hyperbolic, critique, setting expectations for a fresh perspective on the issues facing higher education today. The reality, however, is that the book relies heavily on outdated anecdotes and lacks substantive data to support its claims. This leads one to suspect that the book is a hurried update of Liberal Tyranny in Higher Education, published by co-authors Goetsch and Jones in 2009, rather than a thoughtfully constructed argument for the current era. The primary update appears to be the substitution of “Marxist” for “liberal,” which is used so frequently it loses its impact and fails to accurately describe the current academic climate.
The authors’ repeated labeling of professors, faculty, and administrators as “Marxist”—a term used 50 times throughout the book—does not make their argument more convincing. Instead, it reveals a lack of nuanced understanding. A more accurate description would acknowledge the predominantly left-leaning tendencies within academia without resorting to blanket, incendiary labels. Using the term “Marxist” so liberally not only cheapens the language but also disrespects the historical significance and specific ideological implications of Marxism. The book’s hyperbolic comparison of modern universities to “gulags” is equally irresponsible, trivializing the suffering experienced in real gulags and undermining the authors’ credibility.
The responsibility and care I would demand from the authors include three key elements. First, they should utilize the abundant data available on the issues they discuss. Second, they must define and explain terms that may be used as shorthand in media soundbites but require precise use in a book meant to inform. Third, their anecdotes should be used carefully and accurately to avoid exaggeration and misrepresentation. For example, their assertion that “fat studies programs” are the best example of higher education’s Marxist agenda is misleading and unsupported by evidence. There is no widespread proliferation of such programs, and conflating a few isolated courses with a systemic trend is disingenuous.
The authors’ focus on niche studies programs distorts their portrayal of higher education. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in 2019-2020, only about 0.3% of students graduated with a degree in “area, ethnic, cultural, gender, and group studies,” down from a peak of 0.5% earlier in the decade. The most popular degrees, such as business (19%) and health professions (12.6%), do not align with the authors’ narrative of ideological indoctrination. The only somewhat controversial degree in the top five is “social science/history” at 7.9%, but even this does not support the authors’ extreme claims.
The book’s caricature of academia contributes to the misperception of “Christians and conservatives” held by many within higher education. While this caricature is unfair and unhelpful, American Gulags does nothing to dispel it. Instead, it feeds into the stereotypes, which is a disservice to its intended audience: Christian and conservative families navigating the higher education landscape. The book overstates the dangers of higher education and misrepresents the nature of those dangers.
For instance, surveys like the one from the University of Wisconsin System reveal that many professors encourage viewpoint diversity. In response to a question about how often instructors encourage students to explore a wide variety of viewpoints, 58% reported this happens “extremely often” or “often.” Conversely, 75% reported that instructors rarely discourage viewpoint diversity. These findings suggest that the problem is not as widespread or severe as the authors imply. Additionally, students, particularly conservatives, often self-censor due to peer pressure rather than fear of professorial retribution.
Despite the book’s alarmist tone, the solutions it offers are relatively modest. They include maintaining a Christian faith tradition through student organizations and local churches, connecting with national conservative student organizations, developing debating skills, and gaining in-depth knowledge of subjects. While these are sensible recommendations, they do not address the systemic issues the book claims to expose.
Ultimately, American Gulags does more harm than good. By priming readers to view higher education with suspicion and hostility, the book undermines the potential benefits of a college experience. While earning a marketable credential is important, the broader opportunities for intellectual growth and self-governance are equally valuable. The book’s narrow focus and exaggerated claims prevent readers from fully engaging with these opportunities.
To conclude, I turn to the wisdom of C.S. Lewis, a respected figure among many Christians and conservatives:
“If all the world were Christian, it might not matter if all the world were uneducated. But, as it is, a cultural life will exist outside the Church whether it exists inside or not. To be ignorant and simple now—not to be able to meet the enemies on their own ground—would be to throw down our weapons, and to betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered. The cool intellect must work not only against cool intellect on the other side, but against the muddy heathen mysticisms which deny intellect altogether.”
This quotation underscores the necessity of engaging with higher education thoughtfully and rigorously. Christians and conservatives need better guides than North and his co-authors to navigate the complexities of academia. Simplistic name-calling and rhetorical tricks are insufficient; what is needed is a robust and informed approach to countering the challenges posed by today’s ideological battles. By providing a caricatured and exaggerated portrayal of higher education, American Gulags fails to equip its readers with the tools they need to engage effectively and meaningfully with the academic world.
