I strongly disagree with the basic premise of this article. “Ideological diversity” isn’t a Trojan Horse designed to sneak fringe conservative ideas into the mainstream, but an attempt to make diversity actually include people’s opinions and thoughts, instead of just their skin color, gender, or nationality.
While all of higher education is focused on improving diversity of skin color, none seem to be focused on improving diversity of thought. How can a college pride itself on “diversity” when nearly all of their professors teach from one specific viewpoint? A 2016 study found that democratic professors outnumber republican professors by a factor of 12 to 1 (link at bottom). While I don’t expect a perfect 50/50 split between liberals and conservatives, I can’t fathom that we as a society are okay with our entire “higher education” system being a bastion of overwhelmingly liberal thought. Is it really a coincidence that young people tend to be liberal, when nearly every teacher they’ve had is a liberal?
What if, instead of trying to perfect a certain blend of races/nationalities on campus, colleges instead focused on trying to narrow the gap between ideological viewpoints? What if we even allowed 1 in 4 professors to be conservative?
It seems fitting that this piece closed with a Trojan Horse reference. While it was intended to make conservative thought seem like an invasive force attempting to conquer college campuses, perhaps the author should look in the mirror and ask: why is a Trojan Horse necessary? Why have our college campuses built ideological walls that no conservative ideas or professors can break through otherwise? The idea that we should remotely defend Middlebury students that attacked and hospitalized one of their (liberal) teachers because they didn’t want to engage with a potentially racist viewpoint is insane. If violent force is considered an appropriate answer to ideological disagreement, we, as a society, are truly lost.