Firstly, the term "indoctrination" carries the fact that the question you are asking is gonna be a loaded one.
If I say yes, you get the ability to say "look! the left is all about indoctrination!", if I say no, you get the ability to say "look! there is an inherent bias but it's not discrimination because I say so". It's an uneven playing field.
The only way for me to properly acknowledge this? Outright deny the question it's merits on which it's asked.
Here's the thing. Universities and specifically research and education published is, in and of itself, not automatically "liberal" or right wing or anything specific. It's purely data gathering and drawing conclusions from them and then publishing those in magazines for review for your peers and if it's peer reviewed, it's accepted (fun random fact: this entire process in and of itself is very exploitative due to the way these magazines work).
That said, when you examine... well, literally any part of science, education or anything, it tends to be left leaning, simply because a lot of right wing arguments or anything aren't grounded in science, but are mostly based on a model[1] created in the 18th century in the wake of the French Revolution (which is where conservatism has it's roots) of how humanity acts and Christian religion.
The issue is that religion has no grounding in universities when it comes to any serious research, and the model proposed by conservatism[1] is considered flawed by modern day standards and in a number of cases these days has actively run against things promoted by research.
So... it's not that Universities are "indoctrinating liberal thinking", it's more that as we progress as a society and continue research into subjects, that we start to see the flaws that conservatism holds and how it has little grounding in what we understand about humanity today[2].
As to why conservative thinking still persists (because if it's becoming increasinlgy ungrounded, a logical man would say that it should lose favor)? The thing is that... scientists and people with educations to this degree typically don't enter politics and if they do, they have a bad habit of refusing to speak in absolutes[3]. Combine that with the fact that in politics, those with the loudest voice get the most voters as opposed to those with meritorious arguments (and conservatives tend to be able to inflate this voice with money), and conservatism as an idea still exists and sadly will still be perpetuated[4].
Sorry for kinda going off on a tangent here, but I really wanted to try my best to cover as much of the argument here as I can.
[1]: This is a long argument but the short version is that conservatism is an attempt to maintain the classic "nobleman and servant" structure that was rampant before the 18th century, by sorting people with social status based on their income in classes. Coincidentally, the two original thinkers of conservatism and nearly all thinkers that helped define the ideas afterwards into what we know as conservatism today were either nobility or really in the upper class.
[2]: Something which is often denied or put into muddied waters by conservatives who see this as a threat to their understanding of the world works or (in the case of those who benefit the most from conservatism) see this as a threat to their social position. Usually, these arguments tend to be flawed (ie. incorrectly drawing correlation with causation) or outright refusing to acknowledge a basic understanding of the idea proposed (ie. The Green New Deal, which maliciously was taken out of context and added upon by conservatives to slander it, while the actual plan was nearly nothing like the original idea). A large number of right wing think tanks rely on these two tricks.
[3]: This is changing, but is still the reason a lot of pseudoscience tries to wedge its way in.
[4]: As to why it'll persist in the next generation: YouTube and a number of anti-science content creators on said platform being the main reason. Core example being Sargon of Akkad, someone whose appeal/target age range is edgy teenagers and regularly spouts anti-science and outright inane view points. (Although he's currently under flak as well for suggesting that he'd rape an MP).
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
Wikipedia aims to have an as neutral possible POV, something which I'm both in favor and critical of. The being in favor part of it comes from the fact that it manages to properly show all sides of any argument. The not being in favor part is that it cares zero on someone's academic degrees in any subject, which causes academics to be forced to argue with JohnnyWithABigDick who totally believes that the moon landing was staged in Hollywood and that the earth is flat.
Oh boi. Let's pick this one apart.
First you need to understand that racists (or homophobes or transphobes or pick really your category of hateful thought) often see there to be two categories of whatever minority they despise. The "bad" ones and the "good" ones. The "good" ones are those who they see an anecdotal relationship with, either by introduction through friends and family or in some other form, and the "bad" ones who are literally everyone else.
Secondly, humans aren't entirely logical beings. We have a word for that. It's called hypocrisy. Curiously, a lot of racists tend to be highly hypocritical.
