Two decades in higher education has taught me this: what most academics say is that they wish to challenge the prejudices of their students. When they really mean to say is that they intend to replace the prejudices of the students with the prejudices of academics.I would not go so far as to say "most," but I will say that I had more than a few professors who saw their function as replacing the narrow-minded Christianity of their students (although few actually held those views at the college I attended) with their own, vastly more enlightened views about religion, politics, and economics. The only consolation is that many of this set were either such mean and nasty people, or so clumsy in their indoctrination efforts, that they were not terribly successful.
The university that I completed my BA and MA at was Sonoma State University. One of their specialties was something called Critical Thinking. My wife had the misfortune to take one of the Critical Thinking classes as part of her general education requirements. The assigned textbook was actually pretty good. Yes, the leftist orientation of the authors showed through, but it at least did give examples from both sides of the political spectrum where applying critical thinking skills was useful. Unfortunately, her professor made almost no use of the textbook. Instead, he would show up for class and just about every class session, read articles out of one of the daily newspapers in order to bash the elder President Bush. No, really. She tells me it was grossly and obviously very one-sided, with no attempt to apply critical thinking skills to the left-wing political foolishness of the time. The professor was apparently incapable of or uninterested in applying these skills he was trying to teach.
The university also had a summer program intended to teach Critical Thinking to secondary school teachers. I was walking through the campus one afternoon, and they were apparently doing some close of the program, outside session with all the secondary teachers. One particular phrase, delivered with enormous certainty and passion, still sticks in my mind: "When you take the Truth back to your schools...." And yes, you could hear the capital on Truth as the professor spoke. Fanaticism doesn't need a religion to make it fanatical or dangerous.
I do my best when I teach history to not follow in the footsteps of these fanatics. I emphasize the role of ideology in molding (and not in a good way) historical analysis. I tell my students that a good historian gathers data first, and if you find data that does not fit your assumptions, you need to keep looking to see if there is more of this data that doesn't fit. If you find enough of this data that doesn't fit, you need to modify your conclusions to fit the data--don't throw it away. Heaven forbid that they end up like some of the professors that I had at Sonoma State University.