An Insider’s Take on the Truman Scholarship’s Ideological Bias

By Frederick M. Hess & Joe Pitts of AEI.

"Last month, we published a brief study examining the research interests of recent winners of the prestigious, publicly-supported Truman and privately-funded Rhodes scholarships. We found a dramatic leftward ideological tilt among students selected. Taxpayer-funded Truman Scholars focused on progressive issues outnumbered those interested in conservative issues by at least 10-to-one. This finding was particularly striking given the Truman program’s mission: cultivating a broad, inclusive community of future leaders with an interest in public service. After all, while college faculty may be uniformly left-leaning, the same is not true of the student population. So what explains this remarkable tilt?

In response to our research, Rep. Virginia Foxx, chairwoman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, reached out to the Truman Foundation. Terry Babcock-Lumish, the foundation’s executive secretary, issued a defensive reply, insisting that the number of Truman Scholars enthusiastic about things like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) or immigrant rights doesn’t tell us anything about their ideological lean. That response extended an earlier statement that Babcock-Lumish penned, in which she explained that, “Truman Scholars selected are reflective of the pool of candidates before us. If students are not nominated or do not apply, we cannot select them.” If that seems unsatisfying, you may be onto something.

Well, the lack of responsiveness from the Truman Foundation made the raft of notes sent by a slew of former and current Truman Scholars all the more enlightening (they echoed our findings and shared frustrating personal experiences with the Truman process and program). It seemed worth sharing a bit of what one former Truman Scholar, who has also been a member of the Truman Scholars Association’s board, had to say.

He wrote, “Every year there are Republicans chosen. There are two important qualifications though. The first is that Republicans in general are way underrepresented, and, second, the Republicans who are chosen tend to be more moderate rather than conservative.” He continued,

My rough guess is that Republicans would make up less than 10% of the Scholars in a given year . . . In a class of 60, I would estimate 3-5 of them have overt Republican ties or signals. In contrast, I would expect around 30 have overt progressive signals in their bio. The remainder are going to be moderate Democrats, centrists, or silent Republicans. There will be more overt socialists than there will be Republicans.

He then observed:

This gets to the second issue, the Republicans who are selected tend to [be] moderate Republicans. In the 2024 scholars, my quick review identified 3 who said they worked for Republican Senators. Their research interests were: ‘making agriculture more equitable and addressing the root causes of hunger’; ‘security studies with an emphasis on nuclear weapons policy’; and ‘underserved individuals in the Appalachian region …, safeguarding the rights of the marginalized, and helping develop legislation to enrich educational opportunities within rural communities.’ None of those are particularly conservative causes, and they could have just as easily been listed by someone who worked for Democrats.

What’s going on? He reported, “When I went through, the excuses I heard for why there were not more Republicans or conservatives selected included that Republicans just aren’t interested in public service [and that] Republicans are not as academic (or as smart).” 

He noted that this can fuel a self-perpetuating dynamic:

Because the scholars are overwhelmingly progressive, scholars who don’t fit that mold tend to disengage. This is especially true when opponents of progressive policies are labeled as racists or bigots . . . Most of the programming at Truman events is aimed at progressive scholars, because they are the majority participating. Even when you want to do bipartisan programming, it is hard because there are almost no engaged Republicans who can be tapped. 

This all adds up to a program that’s even more skewed on the backend than on the front, he suggested:

The progressives are the ones who disproportionately stay involved and connected. They are also the ones who benefit the most from the network. If you are a new Truman Scholar who wants to work on LGBTQ issues in your state, you have a wealth of past scholars to tap for assistance, same with climate change, immigrant rights, sustainable cities, bail reform, or any number of other progressive causes. As a conservative, I have never looked to the Truman network for help on any of the things I am working on.

It’s just one alum’s take, but it’s been echoed by many others. And it seemed worth sharing in light of the earnest insistence from the Truman Foundation that “there’s nothing to see here.”"