There are many minor inaccuracies and flawed arguments in this article but the biggest issue comes down to the last sentence: “It is code for granting fringe right-wing thought more credence in communities that typically reject it, and nothing more.”
No, it’s code for granting mainstream right-wing, and even moderate, thought a voice in a communities that typically reject it.
This whole article tries to portray these colleges as only keeping out extremists. That is false. Condoleezza Rice (disinvited from Rutgers) is mainstream. Even Ben Shapiro (prevented from speaking at Cal State and DePaul), while certainly right-wing, is not “fringe.”
And Charles Murray, one of the examples in this article, is certainly not a “fringe” right-winger. He is mainstream right-wing. He works for American Enterprise Institute, probably the most mainstream right-wing thinktank (the right-wing equivalent of the Brookings Institute). Nor was his work “discredited.” Sure many scholars disagree and there is a robust scientific debate around the subject (there is great debate between Murray and James Flynn on the subject of IQ differences in population groups on YouTube), but if you think it was “discredited” you might be reading only one side of the debate. Maybe Ms. Knibbs should try to broaden her intellectual horizons with a little “ideological diversity.”