Ironically, a lot of conservative criticisms of the political bias of various institutions [1] are based on two very non-conservative premises: 1) Cultural rela

Ironically, a lot of conservative criticisms of the political bias of various institutions [1] are based on two very non-conservative premises: 1) Cultural relativism: They assume that all political views are equally deserving, which is almost certainly not true given any random group of political views, nor based on any reading of history. 2) Affirmative action: Instead of pursauding people in the marketplace of ideas, they argue that 'conservatives' and conservative ideas should be gifted with status. (They also assume people are of pure and immutable ideology; someone either is 100% 'conservative' or 100% 'liberal' forever; they can't have a mix of nuanced beliefs and can't change. Judges keep disappointing them.) To be clear, certainly people have an equal right to any belief and an equal right to voice it. That doesn't mean they have a right to equal acceptance of their arguments. If so many academic faculty, an exeptionally intelligent and educated group relative to the general population, lean liberal, maybe that tells us something. If you don't like it, persuade them otherwise! (I'll add that it's disappointing to see comments voted down and up based on politics, not quality. It reinforces the perspective that people of a certain political pursuasion are not critical thinkers, which undermines everything they say.) [1] Some valid and some not. There's criticism of the 'liberal judiciary', even though most judges were appointed by Republicans (at least that was true a few years ago); criticism of the 'liberal media' even though Fox dominates cable news, the Wall Street Journal dominates business news, and radical conservatives dominate talk radio.