CAUCUSES AND CABALS IN ACADEMIA: THE SLOW DEATH OF COLLABORATION IN THE IVORY TOWER_ BY SOLOMON OLAGUNJU PhD

Caucuses and cabals in the ivory tower is gradually becoming a quiet virus circulating in our academic environment. It is a virus that does not shut down campuses or trigger strikes but corrodes the soul of scholarship faster than plagiarism corrodes integrity. 

In theory, the university is a community of scholars. In practice, it is increasingly a federation of camps.

There is no doubt of the fact that we are a group-loving people. From political caucuses to church or mosque cliques, from alumni blocs to ethnic circles, we carry our divisions everywhere, even into spaces meant for free thought. The university, sadly, has not been spared.

Departments now resemble small parliaments. Faculties operate like political parties. Senates feel less like deliberative bodies and more like coalition meetings.

Somewhere along the line, collaboration gave way to calculation.

Once upon a time, academics gathered to argue ideas. Today, many gather to count numbers. Who is with us? Who is against us? Who controls the committee? Who signs the recommendation? Who owes who?

In this new academic ecosystem, research clusters are no longer formed around shared intellectual curiosity but around loyalty. Conferences are not for knowledge exchange but for visibility. Committees are not about service but about positioning.

Academic meetings no longer begin with, “What does the evidence say?” They begin with, “Who is on our side?”

Back in the day, we used to say, “He is a rigorous scholar.” Now, we say, “He belongs to our group.” The difference is this; The scholar challenges ideas. The caucus member defends interests.

The ivory tower, which should be a marketplace of ideas, has quietly become a chessboard. Moves are calculated. Alliances are protected. Dissent is punished, not always openly, but efficiently.

If you are not in a caucus, you are “on your own.”

If you question the caucus, you are “difficult.”

If you outperform the caucus without permission, you are “a threat.”

And God help you if your ideas are sound but your loyalties are unclear.

 

We now have academic cabals that decide:

Who gets supervision slots

Who is nominated for grants

Who attends conferences

Who gets promoted smoothly

And who is reminded that “this system has elders”

Merit still exists just not independently.

At meetings, discussions sound like this: “Colleagues, we all agree on excellence, but let us be strategic.” That word “strategic” has buried more good ideas than budget cuts.

Some of the brightest minds retreat into silence, not because they lack ideas, but because they lack protection. Others quickly learn the rules of survival: align early, speak carefully, vote correctly, and clap on cue.

Meanwhile, genuine collaboration across disciplines, generations, and perspectives, suffers quietly.

The irony is painful. Universities preach teamwork, interdisciplinarity, and collegiality, yet internally reward fragmentation. We teach students about peer review while practicing peer exclusion. We publish on collaboration while perfecting cabalization.

After spending over a decade within academic system, I got disappointed with the realization that there are groups within a group even in academics. Even though I came in with a clear mindset to collaborate with people who reason logically amidst divergent views. To my surprise, however, my experience was the otherway. I observed that it all depends on where you belong and how you manage your interactions with individuals.

The problem didn’t start with young academics trying to survive. The system taught them well. They arrived eager to contribute just like in my case, only to discover that brilliance without backing is academic suicide.

So they adapt.

They join camps.

They keep lists.

They learn when to speak and when to disappear.

And slowly, the spirit of the university changes.

The university, which should be a temple of reason, begins to resemble a court of intrigue. Ideas are no longer evaluated on their strength but on their source. A proposal is brilliant until it comes from “the other side.”

Somewhere between collegial governance and group politics, we lost the plot.

True collaboration is built on trust, openness, and respect for difference. Caucuses thrive on suspicion, silence, and conformity. One invites dialogue; the other enforces consensus.

And let’s not deceive ourselves, cabals are not always loud. Some are polite. Some wear smiles. Some hide behind procedure. But their effect is the same: they narrow the intellectual space.

A young lecturer once confided in me, _“Sir, I just want to teach and research, but everything here requires alignment.”_ That sentence should never exist in a university.

This is not to apportion blames to either the academic who joins a caucus to survive, or the system that makes neutrality dangerous? The idea is to trigger a discussion and conversation and reflection on this as a way to put an end to this.

Gradually, we are creating an environment where collaboration is preached but caucusing is rewarded. Where independence is admired in theory but punished in practice. Where consensus is valued more than critique.

The result?

Safe research.

Predictable debates.

Intellectual stagnation dressed as harmony.

 

In saner climes, academic disagreement is oxygen. Scholars argue fiercely and collaborate freely. Ideas clash without careers collapsing. No one asks which group you belong to before engaging your work.

In our clime, disagreement is personal. Critique is interpreted as rebellion. And collaboration is conditional.

We don’t need more caucuses.

We need more courage.

Courage to disagree respectfully.

Courage to collaborate across lines.

Courage to protect merit over loyalty.

Courage to let ideas win even when they come from outside our circle.

The ivory tower cannot afford to become a collection of fortified camps. Knowledge does not grow in silos; it grows in conversation.

Until we dismantle cabals and restore collegiality, the university will continue to produce not only graduates that are fluent in theory but untrained in trust but academics that are biased in reasoning.

So, to the caucus leader and the silent conformist alike, I say: 

May your alliances never replace your intellect.

May your group never become your gospel.

May your loyalty never blind your judgment.

And may your collaboration be broader than your circle.

But until then, let us remember: The strength of the ivory tower is not in its caucuses, but in its courage to think together freely, fiercely, and honestly.

 

SOLOMON O. OLAGUNJU, PhD. 

Department of Crop Production,

Olabisi Onabanjo University, 

Ayetoro Campus, 

Ayetoro, Ogun State. Nigeria.