The ongoing situation at Smith College’s Department of Psychology exemplifies the tensions brewing in elite academic institutions where progressive ideologies are not just present but have become dominant forces. This controversy highlights how deep-rooted these patterns are, raising questions about the nature of education and the balance between ideology and academic rigor.
Smith College has long prided itself on its contributions to women’s education and psychology. Founded in the early 20th century, its psychology department has had a significant impact through its alumni, who have pursued careers across various influential fields. However, a closer look reveals that the department’s evolution may not adhere to the neutral standards of scientific inquiry. The curriculum increasingly emphasizes terms like “multicultural fluency” and “feminist psychology,” reflecting a shift from traditional educational principles toward a model prioritizing political conformity over intellectual diversity.
A notable point of frustration articulated by commentator Caroline Wilder resonates with many: “Assimilate or leave.” This stark declaration captures growing discontent among critics who believe that taxpayer-funded research grants and the college’s generous funding are bolstering an agenda that may be at odds with foundational American values.
Today’s curriculum at Smith is shaped by social justice frameworks that focus heavily on identity politics and intersectionality. This trend is evident in the tracks students can pursue—such as “Mind and Brain” and “Health and Illness”—which are defined through critical social theories rather than a balanced exploration of psychology’s breadth. The emphasis on “community engagement” suggests a departure from traditional practices in psychology, veering into activism. Students are encouraged to explore research topics tied to political identities, emphasizing systemic oppression over broader psychological concepts.
The experiences of alumni further illuminate this trajectory. For example, Chitra Raghavan, who specializes in forensic psychology and advocates for gender-based violence prevention, exemplifies how the curriculum shapes graduate focuses. Meanwhile, Tomi-Ann Roberts, recognized for her work on “objectification theory,” highlights how personal narratives have become integrated into academic scholarship, blurring lines between activism and research integrity.
The generational shift in perspectives on adversity cannot be overlooked. Stories like that of Elsa Siipola, who fought against gender exclusion decades ago, reveal a stark contrast to more recent narratives that equate discomfort with trauma. This shift reflects a broader change in how students and faculty interact with opposing views, where discomfort appears less a catalyst for resilience and more an impetus for claim-making in the context of perceived oppression.
Smith’s current program structure prioritizes community psychology aimed at collective well-being over traditional individual mental health care practices. This ideological emphasis influences where students eventually find themselves—whether in academia, government positions, or NGOs. Their training embeds critical social justice orientations that may exclude traditional psychological approaches, limiting discourse and inquiry.
The implications extend beyond campus life into wider societal contexts. Graduates equipped with politicized frameworks are stepping into influential roles, including faculties across institutions and positions that shape public policy and educational standards. This raises concerns about the diversity of thought in academia, especially as hiring committees and tenure boards increasingly reflect the narrow ideological beliefs fostered at places like Smith.
A tangible trend emerges from the department’s data, showing that participation in community-focused research has surged over the past two decades, while traditional fields of study have dwindled. In practical terms, this translates to fewer graduates proficient in established methods of psychology, favoring instead those trained to scrutinize power dynamics and social narratives.
The financial dynamics at Smith College amplify these issues. With annual tuition exceeding $60,000 and a substantial endowment, access to education at Smith could inadvertently limit opportunities for many unless backed by elite resources. As taxpayer money indirectly supports research and initiatives founded upon these ideological foundations, it raises questions about accountability and representation in academic discourse.
While the department champions “interdisciplinary” and “inclusive” learning, their selective approach reveals a suppression of traditional psychological thought. This exclusion doesn’t merely stifle academic debate; it shapes how future psychologists approach mental health, justice, and various societal roles. The narrow ideological lens can limit the broader understanding and application of psychological principles in public life.
The phrase “Assimilate or leave” isn’t just provocative; it encapsulates a growing realization among students and the outside community. Smith College’s psychology program has transformed into more of an ideological incubator than a genuine bastion for diverse academic inquiry. As public scrutiny continues to mount, calls for accountability and a reassessment of values within these institutions become increasingly pronounced.
"*" indicates required fields
