“The phrase “ideological diversity” is a Trojan horse designed to help bring disparaged thought onto campuses, to the media, and into vogue. It is code for granting fringe right-wing thought more credence in communities that typically reject it, and nothing more.”
Who is the arbitrator that decides whether an idea is worthy of being brought forth, or is too “fringe” for discussion? Is all right wing thought automatically too far right? Is your idealogical view point so shaky that the mere idea that someone could challenge your beliefs scares you enough that you would rather shut a differing view point down rather than allow it to be voiced and heard?
It is obvious you have never read “The Bell Curve” or done any research into it other that regurgitating the typical falsehood that Charles Murray is a “white nationalist” who argued “for the innate intellectual superiority of white people over black people.” In actuality, book is over 800 pages long and only one 18 page chapter talked about race and IQ. Murray and his coauthor finished the chapter by saying this:
If the reader is now convinced that either the genetic or environmental explanation has won out to the exclusion of the other, we have not done a sufficiently good job of presenting one side or the other. It seems highly likely to us that both genes and the environment have something to do with racial differences. What might the mix be? We are resolutely agnostic on that issue; as far as we can determine, the evidence does not yet justify an estimate.
And as another respondent has point out, the Sotuhern Povertly Law Center is suspect in who they label as “extremist.” On top of Maajid Nawaz, they have also named Ayaan Hirsi Ali one as well. She is a Somali born former Muslim who tries to fight against the practice of female genital mutilation, and has been vocal in her criticism of Islam and the oppression of women within it.
Hearing thoughts and ideas contrary to ones own is a good thing, and a necessary thing. As John Stuart Mill stated in “On Liberty”:
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”