Eugene, Ore. - When I began examining the political affiliation of faculty at the University of Oregon, the lone conservative professor I spoke with cautioned that I would "make a lot of people unhappy."
Though I mostly brushed off his warning – assuming that academia would be interested in such discourse – I was careful to frame my research for a column for the school newspaper diplomatically.
The University of Oregon (UO), where I study journalism, invested millions annually in a diversity program that explicitly included "political affiliation" as a component. Yet, out of the 111 registered Oregon voters in the departments of journalism, law, political science, economics, and sociology, there were only two registered Republicans.
A number of conservative students told me they felt Republican ideas were frequently caricatured and rarely presented fairly. Did the dearth of conservative professors on campus and apparent marginalization of ideas on the right belie the university's commitment to providing a marketplace of ideas?
The left is not interested in the diversity of ideas; their views cannot withstand scrutiny. That's why if you don't believe in anthropogenic global warming you're a "denier", if you don't support affirmative action you're a "racist", and if you don't support socialism you're "greedy". All of these terms are designed to stop debate and shame the possessor. Ever heard of any societies that use/used these tactics? Anyone? Are they what we would call free societies?