As a psychological researcher studying the intersection of empathy, ideological extremism and social influence, I have spent years analyzing the mechanisms by which belief systems spread and take hold.

After interviewing hundreds of students, I have observed how these dynamics materialize. One of the most provocative, and fundamentally contentious, trends I have identified is how radical empathy has been weaponized to fuel ideological extremism on American college campuses.

What was once a noble impulse — the ability to assimilate and share the feelings of others — has, in its most unmitigated form, become a liability, one that foreign adversaries and domestic radicals alike have learned to exploit.

In the wake of the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel, I witnessed an extraordinary surge of student activism at my alma mater, the University of Michigan, where many students rushed to declare unwavering support for the Palestinian cause.

However, what proved particularly conspicuous was the fervor of their activism and the pronounced absence of critical thought underpinning it. For many students, allegiance to Palestine was less about a sophisticated understanding of geopolitical realities and more about aligning with a prescribed moral stance shaped not by historical analysis but by the relentless cultural conditioning of radical empathy.

Determined to understand the roots of this phenomenon, I traveled to Dearborn, Michigan, in November 2023 to attend a community meeting where local leaders strategized their response to the Israel-Hamas war. What I heard was both illuminating and alarming: a calculated effort to leverage America’s emotional susceptibility to advance an ideological agenda.

Organizers spoke explicitly about using social media to manipulate Western narratives, exploiting empathy as a tool to dismantle American institutions from within. It was a real-time case study in the psychological mechanics of influence and persuasion, which I had the opportunity to observe firsthand.

As a researcher, I am now compelled to ask: Can a society have too much empathy? The assumption that empathy is an unqualified good has led to a dangerous oversimplification of multifaceted sociopolitical issues. In its most radical form, empathy demands unconditional allegiance to perceived victims, often at the expense of truth, reason and moral clarity.

This phenomenon is particularly pervasive in academic settings, where the prioritization of emotional identification over intellectual discipline has rendered universities vulnerable to ideological infiltration. The very institutions meant to champion critical thinking have instead become breeding grounds for emotional manipulation.

This is not an abstract concern — it is an observable trend with real consequences. My research into the psychological foundations of extremism has shown that radical movements rely on a three-step process: emotional priming, ideological reframing and behavioral reinforcement.

First, students are primed through exposure to narratives that depict a binary world of oppressors and oppressed. Then, these narratives are reframed within the context of Western guilt, positioning radical activism as a moral imperative. Finally, students are socially rewarded for their participation, reinforcing ideological adherence and discouraging dissent.

This process is especially insidious because it co-opts one of the most deeply ingrained American values — empathy — and turns it against itself. The result is a generation of students who, believing themselves to be warriors of justice, inadvertently provide cover for extremist ideologies.

I saw this very strategy in Dearborn, where activists explicitly articulated their goal: use Western empathy as a Trojan horse for ideological conquest at the University of Michigan. I urgently appealed to President Santa Ono numerous times, seeking the opportunity to share firsthand what I witnessed in Dearborn — but each request was met with silence.

I interviewed 360 undergraduates at Northwestern University, and data from my research there revealed that 81% of students on campus feel pressured by faculty to take a stance on the Middle East conflict, yet 74% privately admit they have little personal investment in the issue.

In confidential interviews, students voiced deep frustration that their academic experience is being eclipsed by ideological imperatives, with many lamenting the intrusion of political conformity into spaces meant for intellectual and professional growth. Psychological models on social coercion and performative activism confirm that when authority figures set the terms of discourse, students often comply out of obligation rather than belief. The evidence is clear: Universities are not encouraging independent thought but manufacturing ideological participation.

Today, the implications of this trend extend far beyond campus protests. Suppose radical empathy continues to undermine critical thought in academia. In that case, we risk engendering a society where emotional reflex overrides reasoned analysis, moral intelligibility is abandoned to ideological orthodoxy and the very freedoms that define America are compromised by those who profess to protect them.

Acknowledging this issue is not enough. Universities must recommit themselves to intellectual discipline, ensuring that empathy is balanced by reason. Public discourse must resist the seduction of emotional absolutism, demanding instead that moral arguments be grounded in fact and logic. And above all, we must recognize that empathy, like any other human faculty, can be corrupted when left unchecked.

If we fail to address this crisis, the consequences will be devastating. The next generation will not inherit a society built on genuine understanding and progress, but one defined by ideological extremism masquerading as compassion. In studying the psychology of influence, I have learned that ideas do not spread in a vacuum — they are shaped, nurtured and directed by those who understand the power of belief.

It is time we reclaim that power for the cause of reason before it is too late.

____

Kevin Waldman is a psychological researcher at Northwestern University and the University of Michigan, specializing in the cognitive and developmental mechanisms underlying adolescent susceptibility to extremism.

____

©2025 Chicago Tribune. Visit at chicagotribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.