If pure intelligence was the criteria,surely there would not be a 'left' or a 'right'.That sounds a lot like immaturity at best , immaturity at worst.
Pure intelligence should be a straight path leading to correct decisions. There appears to be a T Junction preventing that.

"I have long wondered what the terms left and right wing mean, other than lazy thinking."

From wikipedia.org (left wing):

"The term originates from the French Revolution, when liberal deputies from the Third Estate generally sat to the left of the president's chair, a habit which began in the Estates General of 1789. The nobility, members of the Second Estate, generally sat to the right. It is still the tradition in the French Assemblée Nationale for the representatives to be seated left-to-right (relative to the Assemblée president) according to their political alignment."

Personally, I think there are plenty of intelligent and stupid people in all fields of politics, and plenty spouting a lot of rubbish. I encountered similar things amongst academia when I was at university. I think neither the left nor the right (which are both pretty narrow definitions) has a monopoly on truth, intelligence or morality, despite what plenty on both sides would say.

An interesting article Rohan, and to a certain extent I agree with you. The subject is, however, inherently subjective and difficult to analyse. Similar accusations of bias are directed at sections of the Australian media, notably the ABC. Once again, such charges are easily evaded or dismissed through lack of 'evidence'.

To be sure, universities throughout the centuries have trained students to think critically and to question orthodox views - for the benefit of us all.

However, based on my experience as a postgraduate student, I do agree with Rohan that the views of many staff in social science / economics faculties had become ossified. Perhaps without realising, their views had become the new orthodoxy, and they are now intolerant of dissent. This applies no matter whether you question certain assumptions about climate change; mention the corrosive effects of the welfare state upon the self-reliance of individuals; or discuss the benefits of trade. Irrespective of whether the evidence may or may not support a particular view on these issues, I found that some academics were incredulous that you should even raise such points. One lecturer even sneered - 'Look everybody, we have the son of Adam Smith in our class'. Such attitudes, which result in a rush for conformity and stifle honest debate, simply devalue higher education.

Despite being one who despises the amorality of the capitalist system, I find I have to agree with the Mr d'Souza, if there is any truth in his allegations. Education should be impartial, if we are not to follow the usa once again, with their "I salute the flag" propaganda nonsense. I suspect academia is left orientated, in fact I would be disappointed if it wasn't. It just wouldn't be very clever not to be. Nevertheless, all sides of any argument deserve consideration in the search for this year's truth.

The reason why there are so many lefty academics is very simple.Our molly coddled children go from the protected environs of home, then to school and then on to the protected environs of Tertiary Education.When mum and dad provides everything in a protected environment,children expect the real world to be the same.Hence we have molly coddled teachers,academics,govt bureaucrats who see their comfort zones as a right,rather than a priviledge that should be earnt.

Left wing thinking has created a social security dependance of 15% of our working population.This is three times the rate of the 1960's.

Left wing thinking has brought about social and moral decay.

Left wing thinking lacks discipline and respect for past achievers.

Left wing thinking uses political correctness as a tool of supression to enhance their twisted agendas.

Left wing thinking has created huge bureaucracies that have blown the GST on waste and regulation with no money for health education or infrastructure.Need we go on?

In the real world of private enterprise you have to perform or lose your job,since private enterprise with all it's foibles produces a surplus of wealth that can be taxed and largely wasted by Govt.That is the reality.

I shall end with my recent jibe.What is the precise definition of an oxymoron?
Ans.A left wing think tank? Could it also mean,giving oxygen to morons?

PS I don't agree with all of the IR reforms.Some have gone too far.To me it is all about the courage and tenacity of the individual but we also have to be fair.How do we keep the balance?

Isn't it all much more obvious than this? Surely, there will always be a lack of right wing representation on University campuses (right around the world) ... there isn't enough money in education for right wingers!

Right wingers only attack the sector when the sector casts light on the self-serving policies of greedy and ruthless right wing administrations. There is enough history to show that the cause of most wars is always the acquisitive and possessive nature of power/wealth hungry, well-armed nations. We don't need new research - these arguments are centuries old .... you can spot how people think a mile away these days.