Which is why I said that if this is the argument Kristoff wanted to make, he has to make that argument. The equivalence you're trying to draw is a very poor pa

Which is why I said that if this is the argument Kristoff wanted to make, he has to make that argument. The equivalence you're trying to draw is a very poor parallel, and needs a lot of work to turn into a coherent argument: 1. The elected officials and thought leaders of a group are much more representative of a group's beliefs than rogue actors. 2. The point you're trying to make is that evangelicals may not be a monolith. That's a completely fair argument abstractly - but what does it mean concretely? After all, Evangelical is much more specific than Muslim. Specifically, in the context of the last 30 years of American politics, Evangelicals have been a socially conservative movement, often standing in the way of gay rights & women's rights. "Muslim" is just a much broader term, and doesn't carry that political weight. If your argument is that there are evangelicals outside of that movement that aren't bigoted that deserve to be heard, well you have to explain what that group looks like. Also, you have to change your thesis to "We need more moderately right leaning people in the academy" which as you can see is a much less bold and interesting claim, and is one about goal posts, not the intolerance of the left. 3. Internal politics are more reliable. The average American can understand more of the nuance of what's happening in their country because it's reported & discussed more, and competing sources are more readily available. 4. Let's be honest, it's not like the academy is swimming in Muslims either. Kristoff agrees that blatant homophobes, racists, misogynists, etc don't deserve to be hired.