The Lunatics Have Taken Over The Asylum

The Asylum Reappointed: How British Universities Politely Ceded Control to Sentiment

In 1919, when Chaplin, Fairbanks, Pickford and Griffith concluded that the safest way to keep more of their own earnings was to found their own studio, a long-suffering producer named Richard Rowland is reputed to have remarked, “The lunatics have taken charge of the asylum.”

That line has survived for more than a century because it captures one of the most dependable forms of institutional comedy. The moment the patients, with perfect courtesy, relieve the doctors of their duties and begin writing prescriptions with impeccable seriousness.

British universities, once almost comically patient in their devotion to letting inconvenient data sit quietly until it chose to speak, have lately mounted their own production of precisely this farce, though without the redeeming lightness of the Hollywood original. The scholar content to allow uncomfortable findings to remain silent until they demanded attention now finds that such findings are no longer merely contested, they are ruled indecent.

A temperate observation about average sex differences in certain occupational preferences, or the mildest hesitation before endorsing the newest doctrinal position on gender, is sufficient to summon what now passes for the campus inquisition. The weapons are not pitchforks but the far more effective modern arsenal of “transphobia”, “sexism”, and “harm”, delivered with the same measured bureaucratic gravity one reserves for noting a minor lapse in catering hygiene regulations.

The condemned party is rarely burned in public. They are simply encouraged, always with exquisite politeness, to refresh their professional profile and pursue opportunities beyond the quadrangle.

What remains is an institution that the new administration has quietly redecorated in pastel shades of compassion and has tacitly agreed that feelings now exercise a permanent veto over facts. One can almost admire the administrative finesse, no unseemly purges, no visible upheaval, merely a velvet invitation for the old empiricists to see themselves quietly to the exit.

This is no parochial academic eccentricity. The same pattern has leaked beyond the campus walls into wider culture, and the consequences are beginning to feel distinctly less amusing.

Timeline of the Quiet Capture

The shift can be traced with reasonable precision. In the mid-1960s British academia still displayed something approaching political equilibrium. Halsey’s surveys recorded Conservative support among dons at approximately 35 per cent in 1964, Labour at 47 per cent. Left-leaning intellectuals could still adopt the contrarian posture without the entire edifice tilting dangerously.

By the late 1980s the balance had collapsed, Conservative support among academics had fallen to 18 per cent. Margaret Thatcher’s 1987 conference warning about “hard left education authorities” teaching “anti-racist mathematics, whatever that may be” instead of basic arithmetic was dismissed at the time as the grumbling of a reactionary dinosaur. It now reads like an early letter from what would later be called the culture wars.

The acceleration was unmistakable in the 1990s and 2000s. By 2015 conservative sympathies among academics had shrunk to roughly 11 per cent. Successive pieces of legislation intended to safeguard academic freedom, including the Education Act 1994 and the Human Rights Act 1998 coincided, with exquisite irony, not with greater liberty but with deepening ideological conformity.

Policy Exchange’s 2020 report of more than 800 academics found 53 per cent left-leaning, 35 per cent centrist, and only 9 per cent right-leaning. Self-censorship was widespread. 32–50 per cent of right-leaning scholars in social sciences and humanities reported suppressing their views to avoid professional sanction. A significant minority openly acknowledged they would discriminate against colleagues whose politics they disapproved of in hiring, promotion, or peer review.

By the late 2010s roughly three-quarters of academics voted left, a proportion that has persisted or deepened through Brexit and the post-pandemic years. As universities tilted, British society tilted with them.

The Equality Act 2010 and its evolving interpretations, decolonisation programmes adopted by roughly one university in five by 2020, NHS policies elevating self-declared identity above clinical precision, gender ideology migrating into school guidance and sports rules, and climate discourse recast as a moral imperative rather than an empirical problem, all reflect the academy’s new priorities.

Recent polling and media analysis from 2024–2025 reveal the generational imprint most vividly, young women aged 18–29 are markedly more likely than young men to identify with left-wing or liberal positions, a gender gap that has widened noticeably since 2016. The divergence manifests clearly in voting patterns, party support, and self-reported ideology, with young women showing a consistent and stronger preference for progressive causes and parties such as the Greens. One important source of this pattern lies within the university itself.

Mechanisms of Permanence

The demographic transformation of the academy supplies one powerful mechanism. Women now comprise 56–58 per cent of UK-domiciled undergraduates, a proportion that rises sharply in fields concerned with human behaviour, social relations, education, and health. Psychological research consistently shows that, on average, women score higher on agreeableness and empathy, traits that reliably predict stronger preference for moral-empathic frameworks over purely empirical or systemising ones.

Importantly, these traits are not the exclusive property of women. A significant number of men, particularly those drawn to the social sciences, humanities, education, and health-related fields, also display elevated levels of agreeableness and empathy compared with male averages in more systemising disciplines such as engineering or computer science.

The growing presence of such men within the academy quietly reinforces the same cultural shift toward moral-empathic priorities. What is being institutionalised, therefore, is less a straightforward “feminisation” than the ascendancy of a particular personality profile, one that places relational harmony and harm-avoidance above detached analysis, regardless of the sex of the individuals who embody it.

In an institution already predisposed toward openness and left-leaning values, this shift has quietly elevated compassion and harm-avoidance to the status of supreme scholarly virtues. Facts, once sovereign, now require an emotional permission slip, and permission is rarely granted without a trigger warning.

The result is an atmosphere in which certain lines of inquiry are gently discouraged, dissent carries pervasive social and professional costs, and the seminar room, once an arena of genuine intellectual risk, has become, in too many cases, a theatre of moral performance.

This internal consensus has not remained internal. It has flowed outward, carrying the unique authority only a credentialing institution can confer. Gender ideology, once confined to postgraduate seminars, now appears in official Department for Education guidance and in the policies of sporting bodies. Climate discourse, increasingly presented not as a complex scientific and economic problem but as a moral emergency requiring immediate behavioural change, dominates public policy and school curricula alike.

Consider the corporate parallel, many large employers now run mandatory “allyship” and unconscious-bias training modules whose language and underlying assumptions are almost indistinguishable from those found in first-year sociology reading lists. What began as an academic sensibility has become a compliance requirement across entire sectors, administered with the same earnest bureaucratic smile.

Social-media platforms, particularly Instagram and TikTok, where women dominate both content creation and engaged consumption, act as the accelerant. The attention economy on these platforms exhibits a pronounced feminised skew, content that emphasises emotional appeal and virtue-signalling receives the strongest algorithmic promotion. The feedback loop is almost elegant in its efficiency. Sentiment-driven narratives already ascendant in the academy are amplified by influencers whose authority rests not on expertise but on aesthetic and emotional resonance. Virtue-signalling becomes currency, dissent a social liability.

Where the Machinery Shows Its Edges

Professor Kathleen Stock’s experience at Sussex illustrates the pattern at its sharpest. Her philosophical work questioning prevailing orthodoxies on biological sex and gender identity in law and policy prompted sustained campaigns declaring her presence “unsafe.” She resigned in October 2021 amid documented bullying and harassment. In 2025 the Office for Students fined the university £585,000 for failing to uphold free-speech protections, a rare official admission that the polite machinery had jammed.

Professor Jo Phoenix endured the same analogous treatment at the Open University. Colleagues opposed her research network on biological sex in policy, circulated false allegations, and likened her to “a racist uncle at the Christmas table.” She resigned in December 2021. A 2024 employment tribunal found the university liable for multiple counts of belief discrimination and harassment, ruling her constructive dismissal unlawful.

These are not outliers but part of a documented pattern catalogued by the Committee for Academic Freedom in 2025, cancellation campaigns, public denunciations, disciplinary threats, and workplace bullying directed overwhelmingly at those who question prevailing orthodoxies. Feelings, after all, must be handled with the utmost care, facts can look after themselves.

Downstream Consequences

When the principal credentialing institution adopts sentiment as its guiding principle, certain questions are not merely mistaken but morally impermissible. Public policy, school curricula, corporate training programmes, and NHS guidance increasingly reflect this selective vision.

Mandatory EDI training across the public sector requires civil servants, NHS staff, teachers, and local-authority employees to complete modules that privilege moral-empathic language over empirical scrutiny of effectiveness. NHS inclusive-language and identity-recording policies treat self-declared categories as paramount, sometimes at the expense of clinical precision. Climate guidance in schools and Net Zero strategy documents emphasise emotional engagement, framing “climate anxiety” not as a possible indicator of disproportionate alarm, but as evidence of moral awareness. These patterns are not accidental, they flow directly from the academy itself.

The academy thus supplies the intellectual warrant, produces the graduates who staff schools, civil service departments, media organisations, NGOs, and corporate compliance teams, and shapes the moral vocabulary that social media then disseminates at industrial scale. The result is a society in which the boundaries of respectable opinion have narrowed perceptibly over the past two decades, most sharply in precisely those domains where the tension between truth and compassion is most acute.

The Central Provocation

What this pattern ultimately signifies for the health of public discourse and institutional life is the question that now demands attention. British universities, once quiet temples of dispassionate inquiry, have been courteously refitted with the comforts of compassion and re-staffed with those who believe feelings deserve precedence over inconvenient facts.

The asylum has not been stormed. It has been politely reappointed, with the original inmates invited, ever so gently, to leave by the side door.

Compassion, when elevated to supreme virtue, quietly acquires the right to overrule inconvenient facts. Once that veto is institutionalised, the partnership between head and heart becomes a contest in which one party holds permanent sway. The exquisite irony is that this reordering is almost always presented as moral progress, even as it quietly narrows the space in which reality itself may be examined without penalty.

No serious observer denies that civilisations have survived worse distortions. Yet history suggests that when a society loses the capacity to ask difficult questions about itself without fear of sanction, the decline is rarely arrested by goodwill alone. The risk is not a dramatic collapse but a slow polite sclerosis, institutions that remain outwardly functional while quietly losing the habit of rigorous self-scrutiny.

Whether a restoration of dispassionate inquiry remains feasible is the question that now confronts us. In the meantime the new management continues its redecoration with impeccable manners, rearranging the furniture in ever softer hues, while quietly locking the door on anyone who still insists that the data be permitted to speak first.

What if the true measure of a civilisation’s decline is not the fall of empires, nor the decay of its institutions, but the moment when its most important questions become unaskable, after the lunatics, as the saying goes, have politely taken charge of the asylum?

The Rational Forum is entirely reader-supported. If you value what we do, please share the piece, leave a comment, or consider a free or paid subscription. All contributions — whether a subscription or a one-off gift — are gratefully received and keep the lights on.

This article (The Lunatics Have Taken Over The Asylum) was created and published by The Rationals and is republished here under “Fair Use”

Featured image: The Rationals (modified)