Also, if you equate being "liberal" (leftist, or progressive) with unexamined, unbridled support for the president you are also wrong. I go to a conservative school with a left-leaning Political Science department, but academic political-scientists tend to be realists. They have Ph.D's, and it's their job to research how someone like Obama's policies (I use this term cautiously, as Congress has an equally important role) influence foreign policy, national trends, or anything else. Half of them are so neutral that they won't even evaluate the "rightness" of these policies to begin with - they surely don't support them, it's simply their job to examine them. If, through academic research, they determine a policy is good/bad in some way, they may denounce it or support it, but this is done carefully and usually not in a classroom. Political Science, if done appropriately, is about evaluating situations or policies objectively. If the outcome is "liberal," that's because it's been established by thorough research, not unfounded ideology. Edit: The same goes for other "liberal" departments: sociology and women's and gender studies, for example. They may have a "liberal" message, but it's been established through research and can be proven. For example - take the claim that extra-legal racial discrimination still exists. Many leftists agree, many conservatives don't. Conservatives may acknowledge that some white people still hate black people, but that's not a good enough reason to justify why so many african-americans are still poor. Work harder! Go to school! Just move out of that bad neighborhood! So, what can we learn through sociological research? Most sociologists agree that extra-legal racism still oppresses minorities, but why is that the case? Well, in a study conducted in the nineties (I can try and find it for you, if you like), several sociologists did research on workplace discrimination. They trained a group of white people and a group of black people and had them apply for the exact same job. These people had the exact same education, had nearly identical resumes, dressed in the same attire, and had been trained to use the exact same interview methods/mannerisms, etc. Oftentimes, these people would interview consecutively. What did they find? They found that businesses were significantly more likely to hire the white person. AND, if they did hire both, which happened occassionaly, almost half of the time the black person would have a lower starting salary. Sometimes it was as ridiculous as $7 an hour for the black person and $10 for the white guy. Many of the black people were put into lower-wage positions, like a janitor, while the white person was hired on as a secretary. They concluded that workplace discrimination still exists, and that every single day it oppresses minorities. So, "liberal" outcome, sure. But that outcome is based on objective research, not ideology.