I had always been led to suspect as much, but several new studies from the United Kingdom have linked political and social conservatism with low intelligence. (A review of the studies does not address whether religious conservatism also attracts persons with low intelligence.) The researchers looked to two studies of citizens in the United Kingdom. The children in these studies (one group born in March 1958 and the second born in April 1970) had their intelligence assessed at ages 10 and 11, and then as adults at ages 30 or 33. For the adults, the level of social conservatism was measured. Social conservatives were defined as people who agreed with a list of postmodern statements such as “family life suffers if mum is working full-time.” Moreover, the researchers concluded (as the researchers originally suspected) that low intelligence in childhood was equated with conservatism.

So, what are we to do? Perhaps conservatives in the United Kingdom are more stupid than conservatives in other nations. Or would the conclusions of the study also apply here in the United States? I am surprised that we haven’t had HHS funding for such a study in the United States yet. Or perhaps no studies were necessary as researchers might already presuppose an answer as it has been determined (with your tax dollars) that rats on cocaine prefer Miles Davis over Beethoven.

Professors Kari Norgaard and Karen Seto, about whom I recently wrote, have possible solutions for eco-skeptics , a subset of stupid conservatives. Another possible solution might be to send young people to the vaunted University of California to keep them from flowering into stupid conservatives. (This might be another reason why President Obama said that all should go to college. But I do suspect that our President might not say that if our universities taught Judeo-Christian values, American history, and the U.S. Constitution.)

Recently, a new report entitled A Crisis of Competence: The Corrupting Effect of Political Activism in the University of California by the National Association of Scholars observed that students at the University of California receive a biased and compromised education from activist professors. How is this being done? The report states:

[R]equirements for coursework in American history and institutions have been dropped, that writing courses often stress writing far less than tendentious political topics; that prescribed books are frequently no more than journalistic presentations of a simple political message instead of the more complex writings appropriate to an academic context; and that faculty teach what to think rather than how to think: that is, they demand correct attitudes and beliefs of students more than they require independent reading and thought.

Of course, the leftist agenda is not limited to the University of California. As a recent example, the son of a dear friend of mine observed to me that his required course in rhetoric at a major state university, which shall remain nameless, but which did host Professor William Ayres as one of its esteemed faculty for many years until his retirement, should simply have been called “Marxism 101.” And having been a tenured full professor at another university, I have observed that leftist faculty members are universally common in the academy. Moreover, over the years, law professors have confided and bemoaned to me about the increasing large number of conservative law students at their schools. But please don’t ever think that there is an ideological balance in faculty at most Christian colleges or universities either, especially faculty who teach in the liberal arts.

One of the study authors observed that despite the link between low intelligence and social conservatism, the researchers were not suggesting that all leftists are brilliant and all conservatives were stupid (whew!). One of the researchers said, “There are multiple examples of very bright conservatives and not-so-bright liberals, and many examples of very principled conservatives and very intolerant liberals.” I wonder whether he was referring to any of the faculty at the University of California or in our nation’s Congress.