‘The Intolerance of ‘Liberal’ Fundamentalists’

‘The ‘Liberal’ Blind Spot’

“CLASSIC liberalism exalted tolerance, reflected in a line often (and probably wrongly) attributed to Voltaire:

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

“On university campuses, that is sometimes updated to:

“I disapprove of what you say, so shut up.”

ROD ANDERSON -- CP Cartoonist

ROD ANDERSON — CP Cartoonist

“In a column a few weeks ago,
I offered “a confession of liberal intolerance”, criticizing my fellow ‘progressives’ for promoting all kinds of diversity on campuses — except ideological. I argued that universities risk becoming ‘liberal’ echo chambers and hostile environments for conservatives, and especially for evangelical Christians.

“As I see it, we are hypocritical: We welcome people who don’t look like us, as long as they think like us.

“It’s rare for a column to inspire widespread agreement, but that one led to a consensus:

“Almost every liberal agreed that I was dead wrong.

“You don’t diversify with idiots,”

asserted the reader comment on ‘The Times’s website that was most recommended by readers (1,099 of them). Another: Conservatives

“are narrow-minded and are sure they have the right answers.”

“Finally, this one recommended by readers:

“I am grossly disappointed in you for this essay, Mr. Kristof. You have spent so much time in troubled places seemingly calling out misogyny and bigotry. And yet here you are, scolding and shaming ‘progressives’ for not mindlessly accepting patriarchy, misogyny, complementarianism {“men and women have different but complementary roles”}, and hateful, hateful bigotry against the LGBTQ {‘alphabet’} community into the academy.”

“Mixed in here are legitimate issues. I don’t think that a university should hire a nincompoop who disputes evolution, or a racist who preaches inequality {But then we couldn’t have ‘aboriginal studies’ departments!}. But as I see it, the bigger problem is not that conservatives are infiltrating social science departments to spread hatred, but rather that ‘liberals’ have turned departments into enclaves of ideological homogeneity.

politifakes by thatmfguy

politifakes by thatmfguy

“Sure, there are dumb or dogmatic conservatives, just as there are dumb and dogmatic liberals. So let’s avoid those who are dumb and dogmatic, without using politics or faith as a shorthand for mental acuity.

“On campuses at this point, illiberalism is led by ‘liberals’ {You mean ‘Leftists’}. The knee-jerk impulse to protest campus speakers from the Right has grown so much that even Democrats like Madeleine Albright, the first female secretary of state, have been targeted.

“…‘Liberals’ claim to be champions of inclusiveness — so why, in the academic turf that we control, aren’t we ourselves more inclusive? If we are alert to bias in other domains, why don’t we tackle our own liberal blind spot? {Liberals DON’T control the “academic turf”, Leftists do…}

“Frankly, the torrent of scorn for conservative closed-mindedness confirmed my view that we on the Left can be pretty closed-minded ourselves. {But classic Liberalism and Leftism actually have very little in common. In many respects – ‘individual vs. collective’ being the biggest – they are polar opposites. This ‘intolerance’ has nothing to do with Liberalism, and everything to do with Leftism, and if these students think they’re acting as ‘liberals’, then the quality of their education is very poor…}

“As I see it, there are three good reasons for universities to be more welcoming not just to women or blacks, but also to conservatives.

“First, stereotyping and discrimination are wrong, whether against gays or Muslims, or against conservatives or evangelicals. We shouldn’t define one as bigotry and the other as enlightenment…

“Second, there’s abundant evidence of the benefits of diversity. Bringing in members of minorities is not an act of charity, but a way of strengthening an organization. Yet, universities suffer a sickly sameness: Four studies have found that at most, only about one professor in 10 in the humanities or social sciences is a Republican.

“I’ve often denounced conservative fearmongering about Muslims and refugees, and the liberal hostility toward evangelicals seems rooted in a similar insularity. Surveys show that Americans have negative views of Muslims when they don’t know any; I suspect many liberals disdain evangelicals in part because they don’t have any evangelical friends.

“Sure, achieving diversity is a frustrating process, but it enriches organizations and improves decision-making. So, let’s aim for ideological as well as ethnic diversity.

“Third, when scholars cluster on the Left end of the spectrum, they marginalize themselves. We desperately need academics like sociologists and anthropologists influencing American public policy on issues like poverty; yet, when they are in an outer-Left orbit, their wisdom often goes untapped {What ‘wisdom’ could possibly exist in “an outer-Left orbit”?}.

“In contrast, economists remain influential. I wonder if that isn’t partly because there is a critical mass of Republican economists who battle the Democratic economists and thus, tether the discipline to the American mainstream.

“I’ve had scores of earnest conversations with scholars on these issues. Many make the point that there simply aren’t many conservative social scientists available to hire. That’s true. The self-selection is also understandable: If I were on the Right, I’d be wary of pursuing an academic career (conservatives repeatedly described to me being belittled on campuses and suffering what in other contexts are called microaggressions). {So then, to suggest that they “self-select” a different field of study is just more Left-wing nonsense. They are not welcomed or encouraged to pursue a career in those fields — one might even describe it as being ‘driven out’…}

“To improve diversity, universities have tried to increase the numbers of minority scholars in the pipeline, in part by being more welcoming. Maybe a starting point to bolster ideological diversity would likewise be to signal that conservatives are not second-class citizens on campuses: We liberals should have the self-confidence to believe that our values can triumph in a fair contest in the marketplace of ideas {A liberal has no choice but to fight for diversity of thought on campus…}.

“There are no quick solutions to the ideological homogeneity on campuses, but shouldn’t we at least acknowledge that this is a shortcoming, rather than celebrate our sameness?

“Can’t we be a bit more self-aware when we dismiss conservatives as so cocky and narrow-minded that they should be excluded from large swaths of higher education?

“Cocky? Narrow-minded? I suggest that we look in the mirror.”

–‘The ‘Liberal’ Blind Spot’,
Nicholas Kristof, New York Times, MAY 28, 2016




“Here’s some of that scornful reaction Kristoff received:

“Someone named Carmi said,

“Much of the ‘conservative’ worldview consists of ideas that are known empirically to be false.”

“Michelle chimed in with,

“The truth has a liberal slant.”

“Steven said,

“Why stop there? How about we make faculties more diverse by hiring idiots.”

“This is what liberal smugness sounds like.

“Then, there’s the Politics of the ‘American Professoriate’ survey (2006), which found that while only 3% of professors in the social sciences consider themselves conservative — 17.6% consider themselves Marxists!

“And the PhDs who run America’s universities aren’t even embarrassed.

“I had my own long distance experience with ‘liberal’ professors last summer when Deepa Kumar, a journalism professor at Rutgers University, my alma matter, tweeted this:

“Yes ISIS is brutal, but US is more so, 1.3 million killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

“Another Rutgers professor, Brittney Cooper, who teaches in the ‘Women’s and Gender Studies and Africana Studies’ department, wrote a piece for ‘Salon’ about what she believed motivated a mentally ill young man in California to go on a killing spree in Santa Barbara.

“Another young white guy has decided that his disillusionment with his life should become somebody else’s problem,” she wrote. “How many times must troubled young white men engage in these terroristic acts that make public space unsafe for everyone before we admit that ‘white male privilege’ kills?”

“Not only is this clearly racist, it’s academically lame. This is what the professor left out of her rant:

“In 2013, Aaron Alexis, killed 12 people at the Washington D.C. Navy Yard. He’s black.

“In 2007, Seung-Hi Cho killed 32 at Virginia Tech University. He’s Asian.

“In 2004, Chai Vang killed six hunters in the woods of Wisconsin. He’s also Asian.

“And in 2009, Nidal Hasan, a Muslim, murdered 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas.

“…I’m not big on firing people for uttering unpopular – or even stupid – comments. But I wonder what the liberal response would have been if a white, male professor made a racist comment about blacks who kill.

“What if the white professor had written a {truthful} piece about the never-ending slaughter in black neighborhoods — by black killers? What if he had written:

“Another young black has decided that his disillusionment with his life should become somebody else’s problem. How many times must troubled young black men engage in these terroristic acts that make public space unsafe for everyone, before we admit that black males are dangerous human beings?”

“Or what would the reaction have been if an Evangelical professor – I doubt they have many of them on campus – had tweeted:

“The U.S. may have its faults but it’s better than any Muslim country on the entire planet.” 

“Maybe the university president would have still defended the “right to speak freely”.  Maybe the kids on campus would have accepted the comments in the spirit of free speech. Or maybe they would have viewed the comments as racist and anti-Muslim and called for the heads of those white, male professors {!}.


“Back at the ‘Times’, Nick Kristoff ended his column with some advice that conservatives have been offering for many, many years.

“Universities should be a hubbub of the full range of political perspectives,” he wrote, “from A to Z, not just from V to Z. So maybe we progressives could take a brief break from attacking the other side and more broadly incorporate values that we supposedly cherish – like diversity – in our own dominions.”

“Nice try, Nick, but I’m not holding my breath. And while nothing is comparable to racism in America, too many liberal professors on campus view conservatives the same way white bigots, in another era, viewed blacks: As inferior and not worthy of respect.

“Or as Steve, the open-minded liberal put it in response to Kristoff’s idea about being more accepting of diverse (conservative) views on campus:

“How about we make faculties more diverse by hiring idiots.”

“If arrogance, smugness and having a false sense of intellectual superiority were a crime, our jails would be packed with college professors. And a lot of faculty lounges would be empty.”

–‘Liberal Intolerance on Campus’,



COMMENT: “I did my Master’s in Gender Studies at an American university — a field of study that is obviously not for conservatives. I hardly consider myself narrow-minded — rather the contrary, I am extreme liberal in many regards… But anytime I dared to express my concerns about completely irrational yet allegedly “scientific” arguments (e.g. scientists were judged not by the validity of their studies but whether they were ‘more oppressed’ — lesbians, ‘people of color’, etc.), I suffered like hell.

“Whether gender studies or not, THE LEFTIST IDEOLOGY IS VERY MUCH INFLUENCED BY NEO-MARXISM. Coming from a post-socialist/post-communist country (Hungary), I have to say it’s not the right direction. THEIR SO-CALLED CRITICAL THINKING IS ACTUALLY THE DEATH OF CRITICAL THINKING, AND THIS INFILTRATES INTO POLITICS AS WELL!”
The reason you do not understand the liberal mind is the mind (‘progressive’, authoritarian, collectivist, etc.,) you seek to understand is not liberal. They are the very opposite of being liberal…any kind of liberal!
“As a thoroughly ‘liberal’ academic, I once found myself involved in due process issues related to hiring practices and promotion, and developing courses of great interest to our few minority students (at a very rich New England college). Guess who I could depend on for support on academic freedom and related issues? You guessed it, my conservative colleagues. Somehow they saw though personal identity and global chest pounding to see some things ‘from the other side’.”
“The Regressive Left is definitely full of bigots, but they think what they are doing is a good thing. Now that you are feeling the wrath of these bigots because you dared to disagree with their narrative, maybe you should start looking at other groups that these bigots are calling racist, sexist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, etc.

“For instance, I’m a Men’s Rights Activist (MRA). I’m constantly called a bigot, sexist, ‘rape apologist’ (Oh, how dare I want due process protected), etc. We have many solid complaints that are completely ignored. People in today’s society just don’t care about helping men, for the most part, and you’d be shocked to learn how many times the government doesn’t even look for male victims, they only look for female victims (such as on sex trafficking).

“And you know what might surprise you? I’m a Liberal… Now that you have woken up, hopefully you start re-examining those the Regressives (and possibly even yourself) have come to a conclusion about being bigots.”
“Humorous to me that liberals who dominate teaching positions in colleges and universities decry discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, but at the same time practice that behavior towards people…when different viewpoints i.e. conservatism are espoused. You rarely if ever see conservatives disrupt political events or lectures, as we see now on and off of college campuses.”
“The liberal of my youth was a subversive who ventured unpopular opinions… But in 2016, the liberal is simply the opposite side of the 1980s Christian televangelist coin: a peremptory ideologue who seeks to prevail by character assassination in the form of reflexive charges about a spectrum of -isms and phobias.

“See, the modern liberal believes that his private confidence in the correctness of his point of view is sufficient reason to silence other people. In other words, although the liberal believes that the speech controls of Hitler and Mussolini are “fascism”, he thinks his speech controls are good because, after all, he’s right {Sounds like a Leftist, not a liberal}. Meanwhile, all of history’s bogeymen thought they were right. Which is precisely why the supposed correctness of one’s position can never be cited as a justification for controlling others.”
“The only thing that shouldn’t be tolerated in a university environment is the desire and/or intent to eliminate all other views so that the “correct” views can be taught. In other words, the only thing we must not tolerate is intolerance, no matter whose it is or in what guise it approaches.”
And here’s how a ‘liberal’ proves his point:
“Perhaps the reason there are so few conservatives in academia is not that they are discriminated against but that relatively few conservatives want to become academics. Scholarship is an open-minded search for truth. Conservatives are hardly open-minded.”



Tags: , , ,

One Response to “‘The Intolerance of ‘Liberal’ Fundamentalists’”

  1. Counterleftist Says:

    A few comments “First, stereotyping and discrimination are wrong, whether against gays or Muslims” I would hope that you would realise there is a differance between Muslims and Islam, the fact you might claim most Muslims are ‘peaceful’ is a misnomer, already argued greatly by Ben Shapiro https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TAAw3oQvg second that the claim the Quran is just like any other religious book, once again is evidence of ignorance, a lack of understanding of Islamic history and context. Would you have called out Nazism ‘stereotypes’, I doubt it. So what ‘discrimination’ and ‘stereotyping’ are you referring to?

    Second, homosexuality, I would again question the ‘stereotyping’ and the ‘discrimination’. You quote Voltaire in this article, but with your use of the word ‘stereotyping’ you demonstrate that you want to control language using authoritarian methods, is this not hypocritical, to use a that and then use words like ‘stereotype’? My last point is in regards to ‘discrimination’ in what way are they discriminated against in today’s society? I would see them as quite privileged, for example, the recent case that quite clearly stated a heterosexual couple could not have a ‘civil partnership’, where is the ‘discrimination’ when a baker is forced against HIS BELIEFS to bake a cake for a homosexual couple? They claim they have liberal freedoms to choose, but so did the bakers. The point is that homosexuals have privilege in today’s cultural Marxist society, in a truly liberalised society, the rights to individual liberty is above groupthink, this is why your article is hypocritical.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: