Alexander Dolitsky: From Soviet Marxism-Leninism to modern American academic orthodoxy

By ALEXANDER DOLITSKY

Sept. 19, 2026 – Following the 1917 revolution, Soviet authorities dismantled university autonomy, replacing rigorous academic discourse with a dogmatic framework: Marxism-Leninism. Universities prioritized ideological conformity by establishing Kafedry (departments) of Marxism-Leninism to vet all other disciplines, including biology, physics, and history, for alignment. Faculty and students had to actively demonstrate loyalty to state dogma to remain in good standing; for instance, my own essays at the Kiev Pedagogical Institute in the 1970s required references to primary Marxist-Leninist sources.

Although the Soviet Union branded itself as a “Workers’ State” built to empower the proletariat, its ruling elite — the Nomenklatura and state bureaucrats — enjoyed immense privilege and absolute power.

Meanwhile, independent labor unions were banned, and any authentic, student-led labor movement or worker strike challenging the administration was brutally crushed under the guise of protecting the socialist revolution.

Marginalization was codified into policy. The state created Red Professors to replace traditional academics, and dissenting faculty and students who questioned the prevailing orthodoxy were labeled as bourgeois elements, reactionaries, or oppositionists. Consequently, they faced public shaming, expulsion, employment blacklisting, or exile to the Gulag forced labor camps.

Over the last several decades, American universities and public offices have undergone a profound political and ideological shift. This change has sparked a wave of radicalism among young people who, despite never experiencing severe economic hardship, fiercely embrace strict progressive beliefs. Although these institutions publicly preach diversity, equity, inclusion, and care, their actions tell a different story. Behind closed doors, they often silence campus workers and marginalize dissenters, creating glaring double standards.

Today’s academic institutions face heavy criticism for enforcing political conformity instead of encouraging open debate. This trend is evident in free-speech battles at the University of Alaska, the rise of far-left and socialist ideologies, and an expanding federal and state bureaucracy. To address this situation, we must analyze how radical theories mobilize large groups, identify the political biases built into our schools, and support the movement to protect America’s constitutional republic.

Indeed, American youth have radicalized largely because they have never faced true economic hardship. Raised on entitlements, far-left progressives preach selective compassion while practicing intolerance and hypocrisy. This is highly evident in elite academia, where administrators’ champion equity curricula while actively suppressing campus labor. Even within the University of Alaska system, ongoing debates center on institutional bias, free speech, and the protection of conservative viewpoints.

How UAA Marginalizes Conservative Voices

Conservative chapters, such as Turning Point USA at UAA, argue that mainstream universities favor leftist ideologies. They contend that while the University of Alaska professes to champion diversity of thought, it often marginalizes right-leaning viewpoints or treats them as disruptive.

This sentiment aligns with national data. In the 2026 College Free Speech Rankings by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) received an “F” speech-climate grade, ranking 197th out of 257 schools. FIRE specifically flagged UAA for scoring exceptionally low in “Political Tolerance”– a metric reflecting a reluctance to welcome controversial or conservative speakers. Critics point to this as evidence of institutional hypocrisy, arguing that campuses preaching tolerance must equally accommodate conservative discourse.

The Battle Over Academic Freedom and DEI in Alaska

A major structural conflict emerged within the University of Alaska system on Feb. 21, 2025, when its Board of Regents voted 9–1 to strip “DEI,” “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion” from all university websites, marketing, and electronic materials. Spurred by federal directives and “Dear Colleague” letters, the decision sparked a fierce debate, with both sides accusing the institution of hypocrisy.

The Progressive View: Faculty members and the University of Alaska Faculty Alliance argued that the administration censored language and restricted academic freedom solely to protect federal funding. They noted that this directly contradicts the university’s mission statement, which pledges to protect free inquiry and honor “the Indigenous and diverse peoples of Alaska.”

The Conservative View: Conversely, conservative critics asserted that the initial entrenchment of DEI departments represented the true institutional bias. They argued that these programs enforced an ideological orthodoxy and fueled administrative bloat at the expense of merit-based standards.

The Paradox of Progressivism

Rhetoric vs. Labor Practices: Universities frequently host expansive “decolonization and liberation” events while paying corporate consultants massive sums to break union drives among vulnerable campus staff.

Selective Anti-Colonialism: Academic and activist circles often display selective outrage, condemning Western foreign policy while rationalizing or ignoring authoritarian crackdowns and colonial governance elsewhere.

Inclusion Standards: Spaces organized around intersectionality frequently enforce ideological gatekeeping. In these environments, minority participants, such as dissenting or Zionist Jewish academics, are excluded from progressive coalitions if they fail rigid purity tests.

Dogmatic Progressivism: Far-left progressivism has become a secular religion for certain groups. Their emotional attachment to dogmas, specifically democratic socialism and neo-Marxism, frequently prevents open-minded critique.

Neo-Marxist Foundations: Neo-Marxism expands classical theory beyond economics and into culture, psychology, and social power. It illustrates how ruling classes maintain control through cultural hegemony, using norms, media, and education rather than just force, while exploiting developing nations globally.

The Bureaucratic “Swamp”: A corrupt bureaucracy spanning all levels of government fuels modern American totalitarianism. Unelected officials weaponize institutional power to impose extreme policies, driving radical shifts rather than democratic consensus.

Defending American Liberty at the Ballot Box

Defending American liberty requires a concerted effort to counter prevailing institutional narratives. Currently, the education system in our country often reflects ideological biases that challenge free-market principles, leaving many young citizens trapped in misinformed echo chambers.

Because deep-seated ideological positions are rarely changed through debate, political shift must happen at the ballot box. Patriotic citizens must remain unified and disciplined to preserve and protect the Constitutional Republic, the system of government defined by the US Constitution. 

Freedom is a learned value and behavior that requires constant defense; it is not something people are naturally born keeping; it must be taught to each generation and actively defended. Without it, our country’s foundational liberties could be lost entirely.

The author was born and raised in the former Soviet Union before settling in the U.S. in 1978. He moved to Juneau in 1986 where he taught Russian studies and Archaeology at the University of Alaska Southeast, and Social Studies Teacher at the Alyeska Central School of the Alaska Department of Education. From 1990 to 2022, he served as a director and president of the Alaska-Siberia Research Center, publishing in the fields of anthropology, history, archaeology and ethnography. Find him on Amazon.com.

Alexander Dolitsky: Echoes of Soviet conformity and modern American leftism