Cornell University has long been an example of an academic echo chamber where conservative and libertarian faculty have been largely purged from departmental ranks. For example, a study by The College Fix found that Democrats outnumber Republicans 98 to 1 among Cornell professors across six of the humanities departments. Cornell professors disrupt events, launch campaigns to fire the remaining conservative faculty, and foster a cancel campaign culture on campus. However, the faculty recently decided to review its own record and found . . . wait for it . . . that there really are no concrete measures needed to address their own overwhelming ideological bias.

According to a 238-page faculty report from the Committee on the Future of the American University, there was no consensus on ideological bias or how to handle it. Moreover, some faculty members insist that, while there is an ideological imbalance, it is not a problem because liberal faculty can explain or incorporate conservative values when needed.

The report boldly states that “[t]his report asks how the university must adapt to honor its quietly revolutionary purpose in American life. The answer cannot leave the university exactly as it is today.” However, one thing apparently does not have to change: the faculty’s ideological orthodoxy.

The report has that certain feel of an academic confab product, including a self-congratulatory observation that “disagreements did not curdle into outrage.”

The report acknowledges the ideological diversity problem but leaves it maddeningly undeveloped and ultimately unaddressed:

“The committee takes these concerns seriously without endorsing every version of them. A university that cannot model genuine pluralism of thought, that cannot hold and argue across deep disagreements without dissolving into either enforced consensus or performative conflict, is not promoting learning.”

For example, the Committee considered the fact that “[v]iewpoint diversity within the professoriate is one of the most frequently invoked concerns.” It noted that only “a single stakeholder suggested that graduate programs are the university’s most durable leverage point for producing a more intellectually and ideologically diverse new generation of faculty.”

However, it then notes: “[t]hat claim received no sustained engagement in our graduate-education conversations, even as the underlying concern about homogeneity, self-censorship, and viewpoint diversity generated some of the most extensive commentary anywhere in the committee’s process.”

Some struck out at conservatives complaining about the lack of diversity while others insisted that the priority for faculty should be to increase Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) hiring for criteria like race and sexual orientation.

Architecture professor and Dean Milton Curry and chemistry Professor Abraham Stroock, however, explained that ideological diversity is merely a Trojan horse to attack higher education:

“Viewpoint diversity (associated with conservatives’ assertion that universities suffer from the bias of a majority of left-leaning faculty and are incapable of teaching countervailing views), far from being inclusive, is the fulcrum from which a constellation of organized vicious attacks on higher education have emerged.”

Others complained that DEI was not given sufficient attention. Durba Ghosh, a professor of history in Cornell’s College of Arts and Sciences, complained: “[w]e bypassed a definition of diversity in the service of concluding the report; yet our evasion renders the goals of diversity, equity, and inclusion vulnerable to complete erasure.”

She added a warning that “[a]s a historian, I am reminded that the groups that are calling for viewpoint diversity these days are descended from the groups that opposed diversity, equity, and inclusion over a half century ago.”

It is an ironic argument since liberal faculty have picked up the very cudgel once used by intolerant faculty to bar voices on the left or faculty based on race or gender. I have written about the rise of a new McCarthyism in our politics that is also evident in higher education. That includes the forty percent of faculty who admit that they will vote against any Trump supporters regardless of their academic credentials, writings, or accomplishments.

Other academics have called for professors to “recant” views on subjects like birthright citizenship or face isolation and other repercussions.

Many faculty members have rejected free speech and intellectual diversity arguments to restore greater balance in our universities. In my book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss these arguments to justify the current levels of intolerance and orthodoxy in higher education.

Given that history, the Cornell study is a disappointment but hardly a surprise.

After The Indispensable Right was released, I spoke with several university presidents who agreed that ideological bias in hiring was undermining higher education. However, they were looking for some way to address the problem, given the refusal of departments (which generally control hiring) to change their hiring practices and bias. This report is an example of the type of hardened siloes that presidents must deal with in raising, let alone addressing, this obvious problem.

As I have maintained in these conversations, faculty members have not and will not change their hiring practices. They are fully aware of the virtual purging of all conservative and libertarian faculty from their ranks. Privately, they will acknowledge that inescapable fact. However, they refuse to make any meaningful changes.

As the Cornell report recognizes, this generation of academics has left higher education at its lowest level of public trust. It is destroying this profession. While there are various factors in play, it is due in part to the inability to allow for greater diversity of viewpoints. It has alienated many who might consider higher education but see no appeal in going to universities that are an echo chamber for the left.

As I have previously written, parents and students who value free speech must increasingly look to public universities where faculty are subject to constitutional guarantees. Except for outliers like the University of Chicago and other private universities that hold the line on free speech, orthodoxy at private universities remains a barrier for many conservative and independent thinkers.

Public universities may be the final line of defense for free-speech advocates. However, even those universities show the same hiring bias. The difference is that they are more sensitive to public pressure to restore balance.

Legislatures will need to play a more active role in addressing the exclusion of both faculty candidates and speakers on public campuses. Too many faculty members continue to treat citizens like a captive audience. They are expected to continue funding their departments, while faculty exclude conservative or dissenting views held by many, if not most, citizens in a given state.

If faculty members want to maintain echo chambers for their own viewpoints, they should seek private donors to sustain such intolerance and orthodoxy.

Legislatures can demand evidence that schools are maintaining an intellectually diverse faculty in determining the level of continued support from citizens.

When some of us have argued for such campaigns, academics hypocritically claim that we are calling for political litmus tests or hiring based on political parties. It is an absurd argument that I have previously addressed, including in The Indispensable Right.

The call is for donors and legislators to withhold funding until they see real reforms, including greater diversity on faculties. They are not directing the hiring, but looking at the results. The faculty members objecting to such calls have watched passively (or actively supported) the purging of conservative or libertarian faculty from universities and colleges.

For years, I have raised concerns about the intolerance in higher education and surveys showing that many departments no longer have a single Republican as faculty members replicate their own views and values. There is no evidence that faculty members (including those acknowledging the loss of virtually all faculty from the right of center) are honestly willing to reform their schools.

That ideological echo chamber is hardly an enticement for many facing rising tuition costs and relatively little hope of being taught by faculty with opposing views.

The Cornell Report has many compelling sections on adjusting to the new realities of higher education. However, when it comes to ideological bias in hiring, the report is little more than another academic shrug.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”