"If a student doesn't subscribe to the campus orthodoxy, the likely effect is not to convert her but to alienate her from intellectual life."

This is very true. It's also bad for the country. I think that this goes a long way to explain the current political division between on the one hand more or less loony liberal and leftist intellectual ideas, and on the other hand an increasingly crude 'conservative' populism.

Many people have enough common sense to reject academic leftism and liberalism. But then they fall back on Coulter/Hannity populism because they've never been exposed to first-rate conservative or classical liberal thought.

I know people who joined "conservative groups" in college and law school not because they were conservative, but because they realized they were simply missing about 1/2 the story by simply attending classes. Higher education is simply failing American students when it comes to providing full discourse.

I can best speak from personal experience. When I was in college, less than a decade ago and at the University of California Irvine, I never felt chided for my centrist views when in courses taught by liberal professors. They always seemed greateful to have their views challenged. Ironically, it was my most stridently leftist professor, teaching one of the school's largest courses, who most encouraged and appreciated dissent. We gave him plenty of it. Likewise, students rarely got on each other's cases for holding conflicing opinions. Irvine isn't quite like that these days, but even the University's recent conflicts have hardly been the traditional dull left-right yakking. I've taught as a guest at numerous university's in the last few years, and I really just don't see faculty bias and peer pressure as the problem. I'd say the bigger issue isn't tolerance; it's apathy.

I can best speak from personal experience. When I was in college, less than a decade ago and at the University of California Irvine, I never felt chided for my centrist views when in courses taught by liberal professors. They always seemed greateful to have their views challenged. Ironically, it was my most stridently leftist professor, teaching one of the school's largest courses, who most encouraged and appreciated dissent. We gave him plenty of it. Likewise, students rarely got on each other's cases for holding conflicting opinions. Irvine isn't quite like that these days, but even the University's recent conflicts have hardly been the traditional dull left-right yakking. I've taught as a guest at numerous university's in the last few years, and I really just don't see faculty bias and peer pressure as the problem. I'd say the bigger issue isn't tolerance; it's apathy.

Thatīs a pretty useless article IMO.

Any article that is sprinkled with "likely", "might" or "difficult to quantify" should be viewed with suspicion. Especially if that article ends with a "hey, if my assumption of liberal bias is true, then thatīs bad for colleges".

Not to mention that the article itself seems to offer some proof against its underlying theory.

" In 2006, 48 percent of people in this age group identified themselves as Democrats or leaning Democratic; 35 percent were Republicans-the lowest result recorded since Pew started tracking the data in 1987. Meanwhile, Democrats carried the under-26 vote in the 2006 midterm elections by 58 percent to 37 percent.

So are the conservatives right? Is any of that attributable to the influence of college? Not necessarily: In the early 1990s, when college attendance was just as high and faculty ideologies skewed equally leftward, Republican identification in the same age group spiked to a record 55 percent.

I submit that it is entirely possible that young people are reacting to their current government. Reagan was seen as successful so younger people probably were more likely to identify as a Republican. After 6 years of George W. Bush, younger people maybe donīt see him as a successful President.
That doesnīt have anything to do with any bias of a college professor, itīs simply applied common sense by their students.

If a student doesn't subscribe to the campus orthodoxy, the likely effect is not to convert her but to alienate her from intellectual life. Others learn only about a narrow range of ideas. One woman, a Ph.D. student in the social sciences at a Midwestern university, told me recently that when she started reading conservative, libertarian, or otherwise heretical blogs, "it was a whole perspective I had never been exposed to before in anything other than caricature."

And might I remind you that in the early 1990s the Internet was just in its infancy. Care to tell me why the students back then supported that "caricature" even without blogs?

Likewise:
Other evidence that college students aren't necessarily dancing to the professors' political tune comes from post-9/11 data on opinions about U.S. military action. While opposition to U.S. strikes in Afghanistan was common among college faculty (as ACTA documented in its November 2001 report "Defending Western Civilization"), an overwhelming 79 percent of students supported the war in the fall of 2001. Granted, support in the general population was even higher: 92 percent.

A question first.
(And I wonīt even mention that college students are the people at the right age for a draft. So itīs entirely understandable if they are a tiny bit more cautious about war.)
That said, some of Lee's nitpicks make little sense. Take ACTA's 2006 report "How Many Ward Churchills?," which focused on cultural and political radicalism in college curricula. The report can certainly be faulted for inflammatory rhetoric-the title refers to the University of Colorado professor who derided the victims of the 9/11 attack as "little Eichmanns"-but it doesn't make sense for Lee to attack it for a lack of scientific sampling, since it never claimed to be a scientific survey.

Is the ACTA documentation "Defending Western Civilization" from November 2001 "a scientific survey" or guilty of "inflammatory rhetoric" too?
The author doesnīt mention if this special ACTA documentation / report is a scientific survey?
You know, there should be a difference between opinion / propaganda whatever and a "documentation". A "documentation" should be grounded in facts. You know, reality-based. :)

I am suspicious of the assumption that "opposition to U.S. strikes in Afghanistan was common among college faculty". After all, the war in Afghanistan was supported even by the wimpy "Old Europeans" back then. :)
Where is the proof that this ACTA report is reliable while others werenīt "scientific surveys and so not to be taken that seriously?

In short, it seems that the author is desperately trying to find some "liberal influence". And since she doesnīt find it in surveys, sheīs reduced to anecdotes.

Like:
One woman, a Ph.D. student in the social sciences at a Midwestern university, told me recently that when she started reading conservative, libertarian, or otherwise heretical blogs, "it was a whole perspective I had never been exposed to before in anything other than caricature.""

The author herself mentioned that most college students supported the war in Afghanistan for example. According to her - not proven source - college professors were against that war. Care to explain to me "campus orthodoxy"?

Without mentioning again that a majoritity of college students supported the Republicans in the early 1990s even without blogs or the Internet.

Hmm, just looking at the numbers.....

"In 2006, 48 percent of people in this age group identified themselves as Democrats or leaning Democratic...

In the early 1990s, when college attendance was just as high and faculty ideologies skewed equally leftward, Republican identification in the same age group spiked to a record 55 percent.

Given her assumption of "social climate" and "marginalization of dissent" in colleges, I have to assume that it was not "only a chilly climate" for liberals "but in some cases outright hostility". Even more so than today!
Given the percentage numbers. After all, 48% is still lower than 55%?