Depending on who you speak to, modern universities have vastly different purposes. Some people view universities as a place to fund various types of research. Some see college as an investment toward engaging in a more lucrative career in the future. Some see universities as centers of knowledge and an opportunity for self-improvement.
Worryingly, there are people who also view universities as way to promote their preselected ideology with which they interpret the world. You can find these people studying areas such as gender studies, sociology, women’s studies, and the rest of the so-called “grievance studies."
The term was coined by a group of three liberal academics who recently had three studies published and had four others accepted in major academic journals such as “Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy” or “Gender, Place and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography.” The studies covered subjects such as putting white males on the floor in chains to teach them about their privilege, the claim that dog parks can be used as a case study for rape culture or even a proposition for “fat bodybuilding.”
They had been praised and received accolades. But there was a problem. The studies were fake, and obviously so. They never should have made it through peer review.
While many have criticized the hoax, there is an important lesson to learn from its success: Sections of academia have subjected themselves and their search for truth to a preordained framework to which they attempt to make the facts of reality fit. This attitude has no place in a true academic setting — which is hypothetically what universities should be. The rigor of the scientific method is meant to eliminate the introduction of preconceived bias in the search for indisputable truths. This rigor is what one should expect from the rest of academia, yet there are entire disciplines which claim that truth comes from one's bias.