The Rise of Anti-Intellectualism in Unitarian Universalism
Part 2 of 2 on anti-intellectualism
"All humans are susceptible to groupthink, echo chambers, and simple lazy thinking. UUs are no exception. That's what enlightened thinking is supposed to guard against. Reason, science, tolerance, avoiding logical fallacies, and the demand for evidence are critical thinking faculties. When they are demeaned, you get bad decisions—and that's where we're going in the UUA!" —Patricia Mohr Ph.D., educational psychologist and Unitarian Universalist
“The most courageous act is to think for yourself. Aloud.” - Coco Chanel
(This post is the second in two focusing on anti-intellectualism. You can read the first post here: Anti-intellectualism exists in both the political right and left )
While anti-intellectualism is often linked with the far right and fundamentalist religions, it has been increasingly taking root within progressive movements, including organizations like the Unitarian Universalist Church, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the American Humanist Association, Scientific American, and many university campuses.
Historically, the political left has been known for its commitment to intellectual rigor, critical thinking, scientific inquiry, and open debate. Likewise, the Unitarian Universalist Church has long been a haven for free thought, religious liberty, and diverse perspectives. However, recent ideological shifts have redefined how knowledge is valued, debated, and applied, leading to ideological rigidity and suppression of viewpoint diversity.
I often write about the Unitarian Universalist Church because it serves as a microcosm of these broader trends, and because I have witnessed these issues firsthand as a UU attendee. Raised in an academic Jewish family that valued intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and lifelong learning, I initially felt at home in the UU community. However, over time, I have observed an increasing political zealotry, dogmatism, tribalism, and groupthink within both the national UUA and its seminaries. Congregations are becoming more politically homogenous, and increasingly driven by emotional safetyism and lazy thinking.
Several key factors contribute to this shift, both overt and subtle:
“For a very long time, Unitarianism has been a liberal religion. People were free to believe or not believe whatever they preferred. All were welcome, and the individual conscience was respected. Within the past decade, however, the UUA has begun moving Unitarian Universalism away from liberalism, not subtly but dogmatically. The UUA was founded as a service organization that provided support for autonomous UU congregations. Today, however, it has become an authoritarian, illiberal organization that is working energetically to transform UUism into something quite different. Frankly, into something toxic.”-- Jim Aikin, novelist, and former UU
The Anti-Intellectualism of Postmodernism
Postmodern philosophy has deeply influenced the intellectual landscape of the left, particularly in academic and activist circles. Postmodernism has fostered an environment where ideological purity is prioritized over empirical evidence by rejecting objective truth in favor of subjective narratives and political power dynamics. Critical race theory argues that freedom of speech and expression should be curtailed, and this mindset has permeated UUA leadership, UU seminaries, and national activism.
As discussed in the previous posts linked below, renowned intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky, Steven Pinker, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, Thomas Sowell, and Alan Sokal have sharply criticized postmodernism as anti-intellectual, anti-reason, anti-science, and linguistically nonsensical. Sokal and the “Grievance Studies Affair” famously exposed postmodernist academia’s willingness to accept ludicrous but ideologically convenient ideas.
Within UU, national leadership and many newly ordained ministers have increasingly adopted an extreme interpretation of critical race theory, influenced by figures like Robin DiAngelo, Peggy McIntosh, and Tema Okun. These perspectives categorize people primarily by race, branding all whites as inherently racist and all minorities as universally oppressed. In some UU circles, whites are discouraged from voicing independent opinions, with any dissent being labeled as racist or oppressive. Even minorities who express differing views are dismissed.
I’ve attended UU sessions where instructors dismissed logic and reason, called science and mathematics “white ways of thinking,” and urged attendees to accept their teachings without question. This stance is not only anti-intellectual but also mirrors fundamentalist religion.
“My conclusions are that the Self-Confessed White Supremacy Culture paradigm, although well-intended and directed at reducing racism, is a slippery slope to a society dominated by fact-free assertions and contentions that evidence itself is irrelevant; to authoritarianism and other illiberal values, and to even more extremism and polarization. It seeks to lift up the voices of marginalized groups, but when it jettisons other fundamental values of democracy, it shuts down contrary voices among those same marginalized groups and risks shutting down all other voices as well.”— Anne Schneider Ph.D., Arizona State University Professor Emerita of Justice Studies and author of “The Self-Confessed ‘White Supremacy Culture’: The Emergence of an Illiberal Left in Unitarian Universalism”
Expectations of Ideological Conformity and Punishing Dissent
Cancel culture, censorship, illiberalism, and expectations of ideological conformity have stifled intellectual diversity within progressivism and have been particularly evident on university campuses. Several high-profile cases illustrate the consequences of these trends:
Economist Roland Fryer, Harvard’s youngest-ever tenured black professor and a MacArthur Genius Award winner, was suspended after publishing contrary research on policing and racial disparities.
St. Olaf College philosophy professor Edmund Santurri was removed as director of the school’s Institute for Freedom and Community after a group of students protested because they disliked some views of invited speaker Peter Singer, a Princeton bioethics professor and one of the world’s preeminent moral philosophers.
University of Chicago geology professor Dorian Abbot had his MIT lecture invitation rescinded after he co-wrote an Op-Ed advocating for meritocracy in hiring and job promotions.
Oxford University evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins lost his 28-year-old "Humanist of the Year" award for posing on Twitter a question about gender ideology.
Kathleen Stock, a feminist Sussex University philosophy professor, resigned after facing mob harassment for expressing gender-critical views.
The Unitarian Universalist Association—supposedly a haven for freethinking and freedom of belief— has acted similarly. Ministers such as Kate Rohde, Todd Eklof, Richard Trudeau, and Rick Davis were disfellowshipped or punished for expressing dissent and criticizing the Unitarian Universalist Association. Meanwhile, the UU seminaries, Ministerial Fellowship Committee, and the UU Ministers Association have enforced strict ideological control over ministers, turning out partisan social justice activists instead of teachers of liberal religion.
“In founding our two traditions our Universalist and Unitarian forbears sought to create a religious refuge from the oppressive attitudes and practices engendered by ideological, dogmatic thinking: self-righteous certitude, intolerance, punitive authoritarianism, hard-heartedness, militant zeal, divisive dogma, and dim views of human nature which undermine people’s sense of self worth, thereby making them vulnerable to manipulation through the selective stimulation of their feelings of guilt and shame. Yet, now, the liberal religious refuge our forbears created has been occupied at leadership levels of the UUA by spiritually ungrounded, theologically illiberal leaders who practice and perpetuate the same spiritually oppressive attitudes and practices our forbears once rightly abhorred. “— UU minister Rev. Rick Davis
The Marginalization of Free Thinkers and the Defaming of Heterodoxy
Despite its historical commitment to free thought, UU increasingly marginalizes independent and heterodox thinkers. While freethinking UUs remain, they are often ostracized, cataloged as “gadflies”, or pressured into silence. Many congregations only platform views that align with the prevailing progressive UUA orthodoxy, limiting intellectual diversity expected of a liberal church.
An increasing number of congregants wishing to discuss diverse ideas have had to form independent groups outside the official church framework, as they have found no space exists within the UU structure and their congregations for open dialogue. Certain ministers have even taken punitive actions against members who express heterodox opinions, reinforcing an atmosphere where conformity is expected. This narrowing of discourse contradicts UU’s traditional values of open inquiry and pluralism.
“I think the biggest danger to local congregations is the takeover of seminaries and the credentialing of clergy. Newly minted clergy are overwhelmingly indoctrinated and, if they aren’t, they will have a hard time being accepted as UU clergy.”— a retired UU minister
Censorship and the Control of Information
UU World and other official UUA publications publish only views that align with the prevailing postmodernist progressive orthodoxy. National UU forums, such as at General Assembly and online, regulate discussions, limit the scope of what can be discussed, and censor those who challenge dominant narratives. In many UU communities, leaders selectively promote UUA-approved viewpoints, excluding alternative perspectives. This control of information undermines open dialogue and weakens UU’s historic commitment to intellectual freedom.
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate."—Noam Chomsky, from How leaders limit the scope of what can be discussed
The Rise of Emotional Reasoning and Safe Spaces
Many UU communities, including congregations, have increasingly prioritized the subjective emotional narratives, or “lived experiences”, of select ideologically-aligned minorities as the primary or even sole sources of truth. While lived experiences offer valuable insight, an overreliance on them sidelines empirical evidence, logical analysis, and open debate.
Congregational leadership often prioritizes maintaining superficial peace at any cost, disapproving of those who challenge the status quo. Intelligent, outspoken, and heterodox congregants find themselves labeled as troublemakers and behavior problems.
The concept of "safe spaces" originally aimed to provide support for certain minorities. However, in practice, these spaces have led to the suppression of diverse ideas expected in a classically liberal church. Fear of conflict and offending others has resulted in groupthink, where deviation from the prevailing consensus is met with institutional and social pressure to conform. As a result, intellectual diversity is constrained, and meaningful debate is discouraged.
"An organization that turns itself into a 'safe space' impedes the development of critical thinking, which depends on the ability to tolerate dissenting viewpoints and engage with uncomfortable ideas. The more you reinforce the idea that people are fragile and must be protected from distressing ideas, the more fragile they become. The goal of education should not be to shield people from challenging ideas, but to equip them with the intellectual and emotional resilience to engage with them."-- Jonathan Haidt Ph.D., New York University professor of social psychology
The Narrowing of Political Thought: Echo Chambers, Biases, and Lazy Thinking
Unitarian Universalist congregations increasingly suffer from political homogeneity and the narrowmindedness that comes with it. As UU becomes a bubble for progressives and political liberals, moderates and conservatives have largely disappeared. The problem here isn’t leftist politics itself but the intellectual stagnation caused by echo chambers and groupthink.
Many UUs see this as a positive shift, yet it closes minds. Without political and ideological diversity, members engage only with affirming views, weakening intellectual rigor and encouraging a tribaistic “use versus them” mindset.
Instead of thoughtful analysis, people increasingly view things through a partisan lens. Many dismiss ideas outright if they come from a political opponent or reject viewpoints by labeling them as “liberal” or “conservative” without evaluating their validity. This attitude is anti-intellectual and shuts down meaningful dialogue. It prevents members from understanding the vast swath of the American public that is not hyperpartisan—those who appreciate or criticize policies based on their effectiveness rather than their political branding.
“Unitarian Universalism is a liberal religion, not because of our progressive politics but because of our commitment to the ideals of liberalism. Liberalism in the classic sense is not an ideology, but a method for resolving conflict, gaining knowledge, and advancing toward truth. Our liberal approach to religion and to all that concerns us as religious people is a precious inheritance. Abandoning the principles of liberalism would mean losing an essential part of who we are.— UU minister Rev. Rick Hoyt-McDaniels
Logical Fallacies as the New Normal
As I previously detailed in the below-linked post, logical fallacies are by their very nature anti-intellectual, serving to distort, silence, and shut down opposing viewpoints. As Unitarian Universalism has become increasingly ideological, logical fallacies have become pervasive, replacing reasoned debate with flawed arguments and rhetorical attacks. Logical fallacy arguments these days come from UUA leaders, ministers, and activists. Instead of engaging in thoughtful discourse, discussions are often dominated by ad hominem attacks, straw man, slippery slope and false dichotomy arguments. Dissenting perspectives are frequently dismissed based on identity or assumed privilege rather than the strength of their reasoning.
Logical fallacies are associated with partisan politics, political campaigns, and dogmatic religions, environments where rhetoric is used to attack dissent and enforce conformity. Unitarian Universalism is supposed to be different. As a movement that values reason, open-mindedness, diversity of beliefs, and tolerance, it should be deeply concerning when church leaders and ministers resort to rhetorical tactics that falsely demean others and stifle constructive dialogue.
Restoring Free Inquiry and Critical Thought in UU Spaces
To counteract the rise of anti-intellectualism in Unitarian Universalism, UUs must reclaim their tradition of free inquiry and critical thinking. This requires a commitment to reason, open dialogue, platforming viewpoint diversity, and becoming more welcoming to people of diverse beliefs and backgrounds.
UU congregations should teach intellectual humility, resist ideological certainty, and engage with diverse perspectives—including those that challenge prevailing beliefs. Instead of shunning dissent and marginalizing heterodoxy, they should encourage open debate and exploration of complex ideas.
Dogmatism and echo chambers must be actively challenged wherever they appear, especially when promoted by church leaders, ministers, and professionals. Church and congregational publications, sermons, educational programs, and forums should present a range of perspectives rather than enforce a singular political or ideological narrative.
Finally, individual UUs must take personal responsibility for their intellectual and spiritual growth—engaging with challenging literature, questioning groupthink, and applying healthy skepticism. By prioritizing inquiry over dogma and critical thinking over irrationality, UUs can reaffirm their legacy as a dynamic, questioning, and open-minded religious tradition.
I am doing exactly this, in my congregation—presenting different perspectives, encouraging inquiry and curiosity.
Will report back next month to let you know how it’s going.
"Intelligent, outspoken, and heterodox congregants find themselves labeled as troublemakers and behavior problems." Not a situation I would willingly submit to, especially in my free time on a Sunday morning. I think a schism would be more effective than trying to deprogram the brainwashed, especially now that they have Trump as their nemesis. Heterodox meet-ups?