In my book, “The Indispensable Right,” I write about the intolerance for viewpoint diversity in higher education and the atmosphere of orthodoxy created by overwhelmingly liberal faculties. We have also discussed consistent studies showing that students no longer feel free to express their viewpoints in class or on campuses. A new study offers additional data on this problem, showing that almost 90% of students misrepresent their views in class and on assignments to satisfy faculty by adopting more liberal views. The authors explain that “these students were not cynical, but adaptive.” Faced with the intolerance and rigidity of liberal faculty, they pretend to be liberal to avoid being penalized for their real views or values. In other words, they “quickly learn to rehearse what is safe.”
In a recent op-ed, Northwestern University researchers Forest Romm and Kevin Waldman detail their findings:
Between 2023 and 2025, we conducted 1,452 confidential interviews with undergraduates at Northwestern University and the University of Michigan. …
We asked: Have you ever pretended to hold more progressive views than you truly endorse to succeed socially or academically? An astounding 88 percent said yes.
These students were not cynical, but adaptive. In a campus environment where grades, leadership, and peer belonging often hinge on fluency in performative morality, young adults quickly learn to rehearse what is safe.
The result is not conviction but compliance. And beneath that compliance, something vital is lost.
This has been a long-standing problem in higher education. The current generation of faculty and administrators has destroyed the sense of free thought and expression on our campuses. Faced with consistent polling showing that students feel compelled to mimic liberal ideology and viewpoints, faculty shrug or even attack students for being weak. In a debate that I had at Harvard Law School, a Harvard professor called such students “conservative snowflakes.”
However, they are not conservative. Take Harvard. A recent survey of the graduating class by the Classroom Social Compact Committee found that, despite an overwhelmingly liberal faculty and student body, even liberal Harvard students found a chilling environment for free expression at the school. And it is getting worse. The results show a 13 percent decrease from the Class of 2023.
Last year, Harvard found itself in a familiar spot on the annual ranking of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE): dead last among 251 universities and colleges.
What is most striking is the fact that Harvard has created this hostile environment while maintaining an overwhelmingly liberal student body and faculty. Only 9 percent of the class identified as conservative or very conservative.
Yet, even liberals feel stifled at Harvard. Only 41 percent of liberal students reported being comfortable discussing controversial topics, and only 25 percent of moderates and 17 percent of conservatives felt comfortable in doing so.
This sense of orthodoxy is conveyed by the Harvard faculty, which itself does not tolerate opposing voices except for a handful of conservative academics. The Harvard Crimson has documented how the school’s departments have virtually eliminated Republicans. In one study of multiple departments last year, they found that more than 75 percent of the faculty self-identified as “liberal” or “very liberal.”
Only 5 percent identified as “conservative,” and only 0.4% as “very conservative.”
The virtual purging of conservative faculty members across the country sends a message to students that such ideas are not favored or acceptable. The result is that the vast majority of students — liberal and conservative — self-censor in an environment of intolerance.
In the latest study, the researcher found:
Seventy-eight percent of students told us they self-censor on their beliefs surrounding gender identity; 72 percent on politics; 68 percent on family values. More than 80 percent said they had submitted classwork that misrepresented their views in order to align with professors. For many, this has become second nature — an instinct for academic and professional self-preservation.
The authors’ research suggests that on some issues, such as the nature of gender and gender identity, students’ actual beliefs are quite different from what appears to be the prevailing orthodoxy on campus.
They write further:
Authenticity, once considered a psychological good, has become a social liability. And this fragmentation doesn’t end at the classroom door. Seventy-three percent of students reported mistrust in conversations about these values with close friends. Nearly half said they routinely conceal beliefs in intimate relationships for fear of ideological fallout. This is not simply peer pressure — it is identity regulation at scale, and it is being institutionalized.
Universities often justify these dynamics in the name of inclusion. But inclusion that demands dishonesty is not ensuring psychological safety — it is sanctioning self-abandonment. In attempting to engineer moral unity, higher education has mistaken consensus for growth and compliance for care.
Again, if students saw a meaningful number of conservative, libertarian, or contrarian faculty members, they might believe that opposing views are tolerated. Instead, they receive a steady drumbeat of often strident ideological commentary. I constantly hear reports of students having to sit through diatribes from faculty members against conservative politicians, justices, and values. Years ago, a graduating student told me that my Supreme Court class in her final term was the first time in college or law school that she felt comfortable expressing her conservative views, including pro-life views. It was a profoundly sad statement about the state of higher education.
This report will now be added to a tall stack of other reports showing a culture of intolerance and intimidation in higher education, particularly for more conservative students. It also reflects why the last election shocked so many in the media and establishment, as young people voted Republican. This generation of faculty and administrators has created a type of underground culture as students mouth liberal orthodoxy in class to avoid the retaliation or disfavor of liberal professors.
After many years of such studies, there is no evidence that faculty members are prepared to change in adding more diversity to their ranks. While this environment is the antithesis of higher education, it is advantageous for those who espouse accepted viewpoints and values. The students are left to “adapt” or face the consequences.
This is not new. When I was working on my MA/Phd in 1962-1968 at The American University in D.C. I can recall only 2 professors our of dozens who were not liberal. Now, this was Kennedy/LBJ liberalism, not the fanatic lunacy that the word might summon today, but still. That said, they mostly seemed open to other points of view. I sensed some thought it was cute to have a token. Probably some expected that I would grow out of it as I took more of their classes. But so my classmates came there the same way. They came to AU that way and some thought the professors too old-fashioned. I really cannot recall any other grad student in the School of Government and Public Administration who was not liberal or worse. I specialized in the thought of the American Faming, so most of the research topics traveled well between liberalism and conservatism. I did a masters project on John Adams and a dissertation on John Taylor of Caroline and had no difficulty getting the topics approved. Truthfully, I did not go out of my way to stick ideological fingers in the eyes of my mentors, but I got along OK and could count on the support of them for recommendations as I moved into the teaching profession. Would it have been more fun and inspiring to have more companions on the right? Of course.
All schools should encourage adoption of your “senate confirmation rule” in order to encourage free expression – I remember this fondly from your first year Torts class!
“Only 5 percent [of the faculty] identified as ‘conservative,’ . . .”
When there’s a statistical imbalance of those stopped or arrested, the Left claims that that is per se proof that the police are biased.
Here we have a monumental statistical imbalance in academia. Yet the Left asserts: Where’s the bias?
Consistency is not the Left’s strong suit.
Haven’t they created a wonderful place. A place where a student lives in fear of not graduating if he doesn’t conform. This fear has been caused by those on the left not those on the right. The leftist in the Universities are simply a political party that receives funding from the federal government. A step in the right direction has been the denying of federal funding to these campus political parties. Let us hope for more.
An accurate depiction of the status of academia in the US.
I fear this is incredibly misleading
This study only looked at 1,542 undergrad students, while the two universities combined is almost 43,000, not to mention the number is probably much larger given this study when for three years (I think). Anyone who took basic statistics knows this sample size is way too small to have an accurate representation of the population.
That is only 3.5% of the students…most likely a lower statistic when accounting for the length of the study. Let’s use some critical thinking skills!
Yes, you would think someone in academia would be capable of performing a legitimate academic study. What degree programs were these students in? What was their economic status? Did they differentiate between conservative ideologies, liberal ideologies AND leftist ideologies? Because leftists don’t even consider themselves liberals. They don’t want you sending your kids to university so that they won’t understand how useless articles like this are and how poorly collected this data sample is.
It doesn’t matter if they were randomly chosen. You are making a comment on a comment of the paper in a knee-jerk fashion. Stinks of wanting the universities to be indoctrination camps.
“I fear this is incredibly misleading”
I fear that you don’t know anything about academia.
There are a slew of such studies, reports, essays, books — going back decades. (Look them up yourself.)
Exactly what I was thinking. No citation of the actual study so we can check models or stat packages used either. 🙄 Yet it validates every BS claim from the right that Universities are biased.
“No citation of . . .”
You could survey some of the decades-long, voluminous literature on that subject. Somehow, though, I don’t think your desire is to understand or to know.
Stat package? How warped are these rebuttals?
It’s truly not BS. I hear it so often from college students. They just want to stay under the radar, not make waves and “play the game” for the sake of grades. So depressing.
Seriously? Election polls typically report a 2% uncertainty from a sample that is 0.1% of the population.
I would love to see a larger sample–but, honestly, I think the results would be similar. I hear it SO often from college students. They keep their true thoughts to themselves and “play the game” for grades. The faculties of universities have become thought tyrants. God help the students who step out of line.
You don’t have free speech rights at a private institution. And, Harvard is a private institution. As such, “Harvard” (whether the administration, faculty, students, etc.) cannot be compelled to entertain or accept anyone’s view with which it disagrees or that it finds offensive. Conservatives, like Prof. Turley (who is a lawyer), are walking a dangerous line here, and should know better.
“You don’t have free speech rights at a private institution. And, Harvard is a private institution. As such, “Harvard” (whether the administration, faculty, students, etc.) cannot be compelled to entertain or accept anyone’s view with which it disagrees or that it finds offensive.”
This doesn’t make sense. Did you leave off a negative somewhere?
“Conservatives, like Prof. Turley (who is a lawyer), are walking a dangerous line here, and should know better.”
Turley is a Democrat. If you can’t get a basic fact like that right, it kinda makes the rest of your argument less compelling. Just an FYI.
So was Strom Thurmond.
“. . . compelled to . . .” JT is “walking a dangerous line . . .”
Nice strawman.
JT never said anything about compelling Harvard to do anything.
The process at work in academia is the same one that works in government. Cultural memes such as Woke and DEI bleed into actual policy and programs, acquiring the force of law and compelling conformity.
This is analogous to the Mao’s Cultural Revolution, whereby cultural conformity is enforced. Faulty set the standards and student activists enforce them. The “masses” must conform. At the undergraduate level, this sort of pressure for conformity occurs mostly in the “soft” disciplines of the social sciences and humanities. The natural sciences, engineering and to some extent business are less affected because the disciplines are not politically relevant and faculty and students are less political. But when political issues become salient the the conformity is enforced throughout the university.
“The next time some academics tell you how important diversity is, ask how many Republicans there are in their sociology department.” — Thomas Sowell
Who is that?
“Who is that?”
A leading American conservative intellectual. Happens to be black. No wonder you haven’t heard of him.
Are you asking who Thomas Sowell is?? You need to expand your reading material.
Love Thomas Sowell. Oh, the wisdom!
Remember folks, we’re being lectured to by those that think gender is “fluid”, that money can be printed ad infinitum without causing inflation, and that you can cure discrimination via more discrimination. They’re the “smart” ones.
I find it amazing how much the leftists here sound just like their racist Southern brethren back in the 50s and 60s talking about those “uppity” black folks. They’re just lazy, if only they worked harder, if only they were smarter, while in reality they put up every structural blockade possible to keep black people down. Today, you throw out any academic resume that doesn’t appear to be sufficiently woke, regardless of academic merit, and it’s just an amazing magic trick how you managed to wind up with a professorate that is uniformly one sided, and no, it’s not because you’re smarter or somehow more intellectual.
I think you’re confusing leftists with the MAGA right. They are the ones always complaining about something and blaming everything on DEI.
“I think you’re confusing leftists with the MAGA right. They are the ones always complaining about something and blaming everything on DEI.”
Of course they’ll blame DEI you dolt, DEI is the exact discrimination that I’m talking about.
Great job demonstrating the point.
Gigi, I’m curious. When you ever played soccer, did you just kick the ball into your own team’s net repeatedly? Because that’s how you argue.
No confusion – a century ago democrats told blacks they were inferior and to stay in their place.
Today they stell blacks they are inferior and can not get compete on a level playing field.
More and more minorities are grasping that the true racists are on the left.
Yes we are talking about DEI – because DEI is racism pure and simple.
Diversity is fine – it is a small value. IT tips the scales sometimes when all else is equal.
It is NOT a principle – it is a value – a lessor value.
Inclusion is similarly a lessor value – there are good reasons for diversity and inclusion sometimes – and not others.
Equity or equality – whichever you prefer are problematic no ideology, no country that has placed a high value on thos has not ultimately turned bloody.
We are NOT equal – no two humans are equal. We are NOT ants or bees – identical replaceable we are each unique individuals – good at somethings and bad at others.
Trying to force equality on humans always results in blood.
The only way that large groups of unique individuals can survive and thrive is individual freedom – and that is an anethema to DEI and too the left.
Note the statistics from Turleys article – even those on the left report enormous preasure to conform.
The Woke left DEI ideology shills pretend diversity while coercing even its adherents intro sheeplike conformity.
This is all trivially predictable.
But if you are not up to critical thinking – history will also serve as a guide.
From the french revolution to the present ideologies that fixated on equality always led to bloodshed.
Diversity is unconstitutional.
Please cite before you speak.
“No confusion – a century ago democrats told blacks they were inferior and to stay in their place.”
You’re confusing party with ideology. Conservatives who were democrats told blacks they were inferior. Today it’s still the same ideologues who populate the Relublican party. They are called conservatives because they wanted to conserve the status quo.
The same conservative racists switched parties. It’s now the Republicans who are all about keeping the racism going. Trump is racist and that’s why MAGA has been more openly racist. The right has been gaslighting the left for a few years now. They are now using the great replacement theory as an excuse to continue their racism.
“Note the statistics from Turleys article – even those on the left report enormous preasure to conform.”
What statistics? There’s no link to the studies he claims and the only source for his “statistics” is an opinion piece that still doesn’t show any study.
Shane Goldmacher of the New York Times wrote an excellent piece about how well Trump performed in all three elections in which Trump was the Republican nominee with working class and minority voters. Saying Trump “crushed it” undersells what Trump has accomplished. In counties with majority black populations, Trump increased his vote share in 58 of those counties in all three elections. Democrats increased their vote share in only 2 majority black counties in all three elections.
Trumps performance with Latino voters is even more pronounced.
Here’s Goldmacher doing a video using graphs to summarize the data he wrote about in the article.
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000010179976/the-counties-where-trump-made-gains.html
Either Trump is doing “racism” very wrong, or you are peddling garbage.
That’s really funny. But what’s not funny is that you really believe that.
*. My takeaway is “performative morality”. The three components are normative morals, metaethics, and applied ethics.
That should keep us busy. Switch it to performative immorality and its reversed components.
It’s hostile education. It isn’t an environment. It’s education itself.
The blog is hopelessly trolled.
*. My god, AI is annoying. It’s unbearable. Whistles blowing, phones ringing over cacophony of anxious loud voices and the music is either droning or cats yowling with guitars in screeching keys.
Just ugh, splat, yeck.
FDR and Truman made tough decisions to cease hostilities and bring peace to Europe and Asia. Trump makes bold claims about bringing peace but always fails to deliver.
Intelligent people can stay on topic. Stupid people cannot.
You seem intolerant of viewpoint diversity.
“You seem intolerant of viewpoint diversity.”
You seem intolerant of staying on topic.
On topic? Yes, colleges are sunken holes of Mediocrity and eventually the excellent faculties will move on and mediocre teachers will come on board.
No person of genius will people those colleges because a new hub will arise. Geniuses have few people they know and share information with and they’ll create the new schools very quietly and leave places of oppression.
Except for all those peace agreements he’s helped broker. Do some homework. Jeez.
We’ll see if these hold, but here’s the list so far:
Armenia and Azerbaijan (August 2025):
Details: Trump hosted leaders of Azerbaijan (President Ilham Aliyev) and Armenia (Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan) at the White House, where they signed a historic joint declaration to end nearly four decades of conflict. The agreement included a framework for peace and the creation of a trade and transit corridor named the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity.”
Significance: Described as a landmark achievement, this deal aimed to resolve longstanding tensions in the South Caucasus, fostering economic cooperation in trade, energy, and infrastructure.
Thailand and Cambodia (July 2025):
Details: A ceasefire was agreed upon after deadly border clashes that killed dozens and displaced over 260,000 people. Trump reportedly spoke directly with the acting Prime Minister of Thailand and the Prime Minister of Cambodia, leveraging U.S. trade influence to push for peace. Malaysia mediated the truce, announced by its Prime Minister.
Significance: The ceasefire aimed to halt immediate hostilities, though both sides have accused each other of violations, indicating fragility.
Israel and Iran (June 2025):
Details: Following Israel’s surprise attacks on Iranian military and nuclear facilities and Iran’s retaliatory strikes, Trump authorized U.S. military action, bombing three Iranian nuclear sites (Fordow, Isfahan, Natanz). A ceasefire was mediated by the U.S. and Qatar, announced by Trump on Truth Social.
Significance: The deal ended a 12-day conflict, with Trump’s decision to bomb likely accelerating the ceasefire. However, the extent of his diplomatic role is debated, as some argue U.S. military action was the primary driver.
Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (June 2025):
Details: A U.S.-brokered peace agreement was signed in Washington, D.C., to end a nearly 30-year conflict involving the M23 militia in eastern DRC. The deal included commitments to joint security coordination and respect for borders, alongside U.S. investment in DRC’s mineral reserves.
Significance: While significant, the agreement is considered temporary and follows a history of broken deals, with experts noting the need for ongoing monitoring to ensure lasting peace.
India and Pakistan (May 2025):
Details: Trump announced a U.S.-mediated ceasefire following intense military clashes over Kashmir, described as the most significant escalation since the countries’ nuclearization. Pakistan’s Prime Minister praised Trump’s role, but Indian leaders, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi and External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, disputed U.S. involvement, asserting the ceasefire resulted from direct talks between the countries’ military officials.
Significance: The ceasefire averted a potential nuclear crisis, but its attribution to Trump is controversial due to India’s insistence on bilateral resolution.
Serbia and Kosovo (June 2025):
Details: Trump claimed to have prevented an escalation between Serbia and Kosovo, citing trade leverage to stop a potential war. Kosovo’s President supported this account, but Serbia’s President denied any war plans or significant U.S. involvement.
Significance: Evidence of an impending conflict or Trump’s role in averting it is limited, making this claim less substantiated compared to others.
Egypt and Ethiopia (July 2025):
Details: The White House claimed Trump brokered a deal related to the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam dispute, which affects water access for Egypt and Sudan. However, no formal agreement was reported, and Egyptian officials noted stalled negotiations, with Trump’s comments risking further tension.
Significance: This deal appears overstated, as no concrete agreement has been documented, and talks remain unresolved.
Don’t bother Gigi with facts. She has a narrative to push.
This is a bizzare statement. Roosevelt’s idea of bringing peace to Europe and Asia was to involve us in two ongoing wars that eventually cost the lives of tens of millions of people. Truman’s idea of bringing peace to Asia was dropping two atomic bombs that killed almost 200,000 civilians. At least, Trump is a trying to bring peace to Eastern Europe. He is the opposite of a warmonger.
Many on the left do not support any of Trump’s proposals to bring peace. They rather see individuals die than have Trump succeeded.
They would rather see America fail then to see Trump succeed, in anything. Nothing changes. Teddy Kennedy met with the freaking Soviets during the height of the Reagan years to conspire against America.
Teddy killed a woman, but the dems anointed him a saint. (Even the devil can shine like a light.)
^^^ you mean—> we the people of the United States . Try, TRY TO GET IT RIGHT.
You need to read a book. They didn’t “make tough decisions to cease hostilities,” they declared that total, unconditional surrender of the Axis powers was the only acceptable outcome, and they continued the war until that happened.
While Truman was a competent president – he still had little to do with peace in Europe and Asia FDR died on April 12 – Hitler committed suicide a few days later, Donitz surrendered a week later. Truman barely had time to be briefed.
4 months later Japan Surrendered – everything leading to peace had been done while FDR was president.
The korean war which was fought entirely by Truman – is technically still ongoing – There is a cease fire, but no permanent peace.
There has been fighting in the mideast off an on for my entire life. But things are much quieter now than January 20,2025 – and there is some good reason to hope for a permanent Peace.
Iran has been significantly disempowered.
Assad has fallen – and we are still looking to see what the new governemtn will be about.
They are not likely to be good guys, but they are hostile to Hezbolla and Iran and that will significantly reduce conflict in lebanon.
Most significant countries NOT part of the abraham accords want a relationship with Israel but need the right conditions to do so,
And they are using their political power to coerce Hamas and palestinian groups into a deal.
There are splinter groups in the west bank that have offered Israel everything it wants in a peace deal in return for autonomy.
The West Bank has NOT joined in the Gaza war and there is a strong likelyhood of a peace deal involving the West bank.
The fundimental question is Gaza and Hamas – they seem completely unable to accept anything short of the anihilation of Israel – even facing gthe near certainty of their own annihilation if they can not reach a deal.
Regardless they exact form and moment of peace in the mideast are still unclear – but peace is near certain.
Ukraine was F#$Ked when it and Europe and Biden started talking about joining NATO.
There is absolute certainty there will be a peace deal in Ukraine.
It is just unlikely to be a pleasant one.
Zellensky has nothing to negotiate with – and Ukraine is just not in the US interests.
Though none of this matters much as Russia is a dying superpower and we should be far more concerned about what happens to half the worlds nukes when it finally collapses.
In the long run Ukraine wins this – it just may be a decade from now/
This isn’t learning, and grads are leaving with useless degrees because they didn’t learn anything useful, even if they were of the right mind. Anyone that still thinks an Ivy League receipt on a job application is some kind of guarantee needs to think again; indeed, today that is cause to pause and throw the resume into the circular file. Those days are over, and your average electrician or plumber is probably doing better financially in the real world. This isn’t to disparage anyone or what they do for a living – just a statement of fact. Modern Ivy League grads are no better, and often a great deal worse, than people that had more sanity and less privilege. The ivory tower is now a glass house, and remedial classes in these ‘storied’ institutions pretty much say it all. Stop sending your kids.
GUESS WHAT A HARVARD LAW SCHOOL GRAD IS OFFERED RIGHT OUT OF SCHOOL?
The HEA Group and Student Defense, “Four years after graduation, Harvard Law graduates had a median annual salary of $233,589”
Such a waste of good money.
Adaptive Learning is Insanity???? (Yes it is)
1. The below referenced comment signed as “This is Insanity” is the actual insanity. Classifying others by sheer creation of negatively connotative classification, then using it to demean, degrade and marginalize individuals thus classified as human beings (much less idea or logical positions) sounds very much like the defamatory and inflammatory propagation of hatred rather than the exchange of ideas. “This is Insanity” appears similar to robo propaganda very similar to the 1938 Goebbels thought and message communication process.
2. Unfortunately, even the categorization by “Conservative” effectively aligns “MAGA” as a synonym to ensure propagation of hatred and prejudice. Like the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) in the 1930’s, messaging strategy aligning “non-Aryans” (or any other negatively created categorization) as racists, then using that classification for genocide has occurred and historically verified (REMEMBER: Approximately 6 million Jews were murdered during the Holocaust, which includes those killed in concentration camps and pogroms. Total Non-Jewish Victims estimates suggest around 5 million non-Jewish victims, including Roma, disabled individuals, and political dissidents.)
3. Reality: Hillary Clinton Suggests ‘Formal Deprogramming’ For ‘MAGA Extremists’ (Forbes Magazine Interview); The Democratic Party is navigating a complex landscape for more aggressive opposition to randomly categorized “anti-democracy” individuals and leaders. A mix of public protests and leadership calls for a more united front against perceived threats to democracy using violence (“Fight in the Streets”, “Un-Mask Officers, Department Secretaries, “DODGES” and dox them and their families) is prevalent.
Having seen the results personally in post-war Germany, would have NEVER thought we would see this in America.
America yes, United States no you wouldn’t see it.
“MAGA” is a well earned synonym to for hatred and prejudice. Also treason, racism, fascism, and white nationalism.
“ says:
“MAGA” is a well earned synonym to for hatred and prejudice. Also treason, racism, fascism, and white nationalism”
Say MAGA two more times and a President Harris will appear!!
“white nationalism”
What is that? Having car insurance? Showing up to work on time? Regular church attendance?
If taking on Putin would be a bad thing, then was taking on Hitler a bad thing? Should Hitler have been left alone to do all of the bad things that he did?
What does that have to do with professors lowering grades on a students political beliefs and students having to pretend to have different political views than what they actually believe?
Do you have problems with reading and comprehension?
If France can take land back from Hitler, then Ukraine can take land back from Putin.
Why are conservative students or staff so afraid? If they are having to “self-censor” at liberal leaning schools why don’t they go to more conservative schools? There’s Notre Dame, Liberty University, Brigham Young, Prager U, etc.
Should those schools hire more liberal faculty so students are exposed to an opposing view? Should they be forced to hire liberal faculty or more Democrats if they are in the minority?
“ Why are conservative students or staff so afraid? If they are having to “self-censor” at liberal leaning schools why don’t they go to more conservative schools? There’s Notre Dame, Liberty University, Brigham Young, Prager U, etc.
Should those schools hire more liberal faculty so students are exposed to an opposing view? Should they be forced to hire liberal faculty or more Democrats if they are in the minority?”
Dumb dumb they are rejected out of hand. Stop being such a moron.
There’s no proof of that
“There’s no proof of that”
Dumb dumb there is study after study showing this. Can you please bother to get the least bit informed before you waste our time here?
What studies? Show us these studies.
Just the fact that faculty is 95%+ one sided is proof enough. That doesn’t happen by accident. You’re done here, you’ve proven yourself incapable of actual reasoning.
“Why are conservative students or staff so afraid? ”
Anonymous, if you are not the nutcase, George Svelaz, you did a good job of imitating him here along with your specious replies.
If the Iraqis can be bombed out of Kuwait, then the Russians can be bombed out of Urkaine.
So why haven’t they been yet?
The U.S. gained control of the airspace over Iraq and Kuwait in the first 48 hours. Neither side in Eastern Ukraine has control of the airspace. The airspace is that pivotal.
“If the Iraqis can be bombed out of Kuwait, then the Russians can be bombed out of Urkaine.
So why haven’t they been yet?”
The Iraqis weren’t “bombed out”, we still had to invade with ground troops. Read some history before you bloviate.
“If the Iraqis can be bombed out of Kuwait, then the Russians can be bombed out of Urkaine.
So why haven’t they been yet?”
Who’s going to do it? Ukraine doesn’t have the air force.
The real question is why can’t Russia manage to conquer a much smaller and weaker country on their own border. It’s like the USA being in a three year stalemate after invading Mexico. It’s pathetic, to be honest. Forget first world military, I’m not sure that I’d put Russia on the same level as even North Korea.
Where do you think the billions given to them have gone? Russia isn’t fighting just Ukraine.