> And academia excludes them because it rightly understands that the goal of conservatism is to destroy them utterly. Is it really? And even granting that "the

> And academia excludes them because it rightly understands that the goal of conservatism is to destroy them utterly. Is it really? And even granting that "the goal of conservatism is to destroy [academia] utterly," for the sake of argument. Are you confusing the situation at the end with the situation at the start? The fact of the matter is academia hasn't been able to destroy conservatism, so it seems all it accomplished was making an enemy and picking a fight. They're in a bad situation now, which calls into question the wisdom of their previous strategy and positions. > One cannot have a foundation of science while accepting people who want to normalize Christian Biblical literalism, racial realism and anti-vaccine conspiracy theories. These two paradigms simply cannot coexist. I think what you're doing is cherry-picking extreme examples in order to justify a prejudice. You can tar academia just the same, by cherry-picking academics who taken all kinds strange and indefensible positions.