6 ms·

> The 10-point memo urged viewpoint diversity in faculty, students and staff, including revising governance structures and "transforming or abolishing instituti

> The 10-point memo urged viewpoint diversity in faculty, students and staff, including revising governance structures and "transforming or abolishing institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas." So only conservative ideas deserve protection?

sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition...There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” Wilhoit's Law continues to be an accurate lens.
- nakamoto_damacy 1y ago
  That setup sounds like Apartheid Israel, before the genocide. Now they just bomb them. At least we're not at late stage Conservatism in America.
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
    > At least we're not at late stage Conservatism in America. We seem to be doing our best to run there as fast as possible.
  - _verandaguy 1y ago
    > we're not at late stage Conservatism in America Many international observers would beg to differ.
    - nakamoto_damacy 1y ago
      I was being sarcastic =)
throwaway894345 1y ago
Not only that, but this sounds a lot like DEI to me… I thought conservatives were against DEI?
- Analemma_ 1y ago
  The objection was never the hegemony of a specific ideology: private evangelical universities like Liberty, Bob Jones, etc. have had much stricter demands on ideological conformity for much longer, and nobody raised a peep. The problem was always that it wasn't their ideology being promoted; anyone who thought otherwise and that their complaints about groupthink or whatever were genuine was a useful idiot for the regime.
- codyb 1y ago
  It's great that they've declared war on DEI claiming it elevates people to positions they don't deserve to hold over more qualified candidates and then immediately proceed to elevate the least qualified, most corrupt, despicable pieces of shit they can find to every position they can while firing everyone who disagrees with anything they say.
- stego-tech 1y ago
  That’s exactly what it is. In the free marketplace of ideas, conservatism was gradually shut out because of its refusal to adapt to changing times. A populace embraces conservative values in generally two scenarios: a golden era that they don’t wish to see end and is dependent upon certain ideals, or a populist movement during a downturn or empirical collapse where a certain segment of the population seeks scapegoats instead of reform. Especially given the origins of the internet and the bulk of folks who maintain or create for it, conservative values were always the extreme minority. Rather than reform or improve their ideology and platform, they seek forced acceptance and indoctrination along with the exclusion or elimination of their perceived enemies. So yes, they’re using a form of coerced “DEI” to ensure their viewpoints are forcibly represented to a populace that has consistently told them to fuck off, but only for the narrative of DEI as a means of institutional harm against white conservatives.
  - 1y ago
deeg 1y ago
I wonder if Liberty Univ will be diversifying its viewpoint.
- mc32 1y ago
  Does it get state and federal funding? If it does, it should conform. If it's private and does not get funding, then I guess it can continue doing what it does...
  - lokar 1y ago
    They count students paying with federal grants and loans, so yes.
  - matthewdgreen 1y ago
    A quick reminder that the First Amendment of the Unites States Constitution bars the Federal government from forcing private institutions to participate in chosen political speech. The question of whether you get funding from the Federal Government should not matter, since it's the Federal Government that's constitutionally constrained from doing this. Of course if we're no longer in a place where the rule of law applies, then sentences like "if it's private and does not get funding..." hardly matter.
  - UncleMeat 1y ago
    Yes. It receives federal grant funding for its faculty. Students receive federal loans for tuition. And international students can receive visas to attend it.
tdb7893 1y ago
I think framing this stuff as even a protection of conservative views is going to miss the point. They seem to want a hiring preference for conservative views and seem to want to punish non-conservative organizations at universities (e.g. LGBT organizations or views). This won't be the end to this push, it's just another step in a longer context. Edit: with NSPM-7 you can sorta see the angle they are likely to push. With a lot of the oppositional views to the government being labelled as promoting terrorism and violence.
matthewdgreen 1y ago
Yes. And partisans who control the United States government will ensure their preferred political ideas get taught by private institutions under the guise of “ideological diversity”. No diversity will be required from conservative organizations. None of this is constitutional and none of it should be happening in our country.
- ModernMech 1y ago
  Not just the US government but especially state governments, which control state universities: https://thedailytexan.com/2025/09/30/ut-system-announces-audit-of-gender-studies-courses https://thedailytexan.com/2025/09/30/ut-system-announces-aud... “The U.T. System has been reviewing courses on gender identity taught at all UT institutions to ensure compliance and alignment with applicable law and state and federal guidance, and to make sure any courses that are taught on UT campuses are aligned with the direction and priorities of the Board of Regents,” the UT System said in a statement to the Texan.
IncreasePosts 1y ago
[flagged]
- carabiner 1y ago
  "Fight cancer," are you saying that AIDS doesn't matter?
stronglikedan 1y ago
[flagged]
- lokar 1y ago
  It has been well documented that conservative political violence far outnumbers liberal in the US.
  - josephg 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - pesus 1y ago
      > People on the left think conservative political violence is worse. But conservatives don’t see it that way. It doesn't matter if they "see" it that way. The statistics don't change because they don't like them.
      - josephg 1y ago
        I know and I agree. But politics are more often driven by perception than reality.
    - rockercoaster 1y ago
      > Charlie Kirk. We'll see what shakes out of the trial, but odds are leaning that way, yeah. > The healthcare ceo. Last I checked the guy's history read as right-leaning and it was a personal grievance that motivated it? I remember this because lots of people online were surprised/disappointed when he turned out not to have clear leftist motivations. But I admit I haven't kept up on this since the first few weeks, maybe the picture's shifted again. > Multiple attempts on Trump’s life on the campaign trail. One right-leaning guy motivated by notoriety-seeking more than politics, and the second one was some nut with a very weird past (lots of felony charges including related to firearms but somehow also lots of foreign travel to conflict zones?) and tough-to-bucket politics. > People on the left think conservative political violence is worse. But conservatives don’t see it that way. Both sides of American politics think the other side has a worrying amount of political violence. One side's leaders routinely call for violence. The other's almost never do. There's a clear difference. There's even a clear difference with Republicans pre-Trump and the modern MAGA party—their talking heads used to sometimes call for political violence, but at least their elected and appointed officials rarely did. Both do, now, and have since Trump's first campaign (remember when he suggested his followers shoot Hillary if she won? On stage, to a crowd, with cameras and everything?)
Hizonner 1y ago
> "transforming or abolishing institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas." So what "units" do they think these are, and how are they supposedly doing it? Is that what the "units" themselves think they're doing?
- seanmcdirmid 1y ago
  The math and economics departments? They don't really specify, and it can easily be argued that those two departments belittle conservative ideals.
  - Hizonner 1y ago
    Could be. Although if that's what they're getting at, it's more likely they mean earth sciences and biology. "Yes, dumping all that CO2 into the atmosphere has measurably changed the climate and is likely to change it more". "No, the world was not created in 6 days 6000 years ago, you moron." It's a fair cop.
    - Freedom2 1y ago
      Some, especially some smart HN commenters, would say that conservatives just want to have an honest discussion without being insulted or being made to feel their opinions are wrong by default.
      - matthewdgreen 1y ago
        I think that's fair. But I also think table stakes for conservatives to expect an honest discussion and respect is to criticize and distance themselves from deeply wrong and unconstitutional proposals like the one in TFA.
      - seanmcdirmid 1y ago
        How do you effectively deal with flat earthers, or people who believe other countries pay our tariffs? Or people who don't believe in graph slopes and just say "climate has changed before"?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
logicalmind 1y ago
The problem I see is that the term "conservative" is not defined. There are many places where current "conservatives" would be at odds with "conservatives" of just a few years ago. If you're a fiscal conservative, where did the tea party go?, you'd by furious by the spending of the current "conservatives".
hagbard_c 1y ago
So you're saying [...] https://iea.org.uk/the-newman-peterson-interview-was-symptomatic-of-the-biases-of-public-service-broadcasters/ https://iea.org.uk/the-newman-peterson-interview-was-symptom... I suspect you are aware of the existing 'progressive' bias in academia and the dearth of 'institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against progressive ideas' on the average campus while the Humanities are rife with '${identity_group} studies' departments where the discourse is centred around challenging systemic power relations in society, arguing that knowledge, truth, and social structures are fundamentally shaped by power dynamics between dominant and oppressed groups. Beyond just understanding and critiquing these dynamics, it explicitly aims to transform society through praxis and collective action with an explicit sociopolitical purpose (a citation straight from Wikipedia and as such certainly approved by those same departments). As to whether the approach taken here is the best there is room for discussion. Instead of censoring those departments it may be more effective to have those institutions erect new departments which take aim at what those 'Studies' departments and others peddle as 'their truth'. Here's an idea, now listen well. Most if not all academical institutions have sporting arenas or at least access to them. How about they fight it out in those arenas, a regular (bi-weekly or monthly) battle of ideas between the ${identity_group} studies departments and their (equally well-funded and staffed) ideological opponents? Traditional debating rules shall be followed, no shout-me-downs, tantrums, walkouts, no paint or ketchup or pie throwing, none of the sort. If the debate ends inconclusive the fight may be continued in a boxing ring following amateur boxing rules and using protective gear. Outside of these battles the departments shall behave like normal, traditional academic institutions. If some studies department wishes to transform society through praxis and collective action they can do that in their own time, off-campus, using their own funding and at their own risk. This goes for all departments no matter where they stand politically.

sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago

“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition...There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” Wilhoit's Law continues to be an accurate lens.

nakamoto_damacy 1y ago
That setup sounds like Apartheid Israel, before the genocide. Now they just bomb them. At least we're not at late stage Conservatism in America.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
  > At least we're not at late stage Conservatism in America. We seem to be doing our best to run there as fast as possible.
- _verandaguy 1y ago
  > we're not at late stage Conservatism in America Many international observers would beg to differ.
  - nakamoto_damacy 1y ago
    I was being sarcastic =)

throwaway894345 1y ago

Not only that, but this sounds a lot like DEI to me… I thought conservatives were against DEI?

Analemma_ 1y ago
The objection was never the hegemony of a specific ideology: private evangelical universities like Liberty, Bob Jones, etc. have had much stricter demands on ideological conformity for much longer, and nobody raised a peep. The problem was always that it wasn't their ideology being promoted; anyone who thought otherwise and that their complaints about groupthink or whatever were genuine was a useful idiot for the regime.
codyb 1y ago
It's great that they've declared war on DEI claiming it elevates people to positions they don't deserve to hold over more qualified candidates and then immediately proceed to elevate the least qualified, most corrupt, despicable pieces of shit they can find to every position they can while firing everyone who disagrees with anything they say.
stego-tech 1y ago
That’s exactly what it is. In the free marketplace of ideas, conservatism was gradually shut out because of its refusal to adapt to changing times. A populace embraces conservative values in generally two scenarios: a golden era that they don’t wish to see end and is dependent upon certain ideals, or a populist movement during a downturn or empirical collapse where a certain segment of the population seeks scapegoats instead of reform. Especially given the origins of the internet and the bulk of folks who maintain or create for it, conservative values were always the extreme minority. Rather than reform or improve their ideology and platform, they seek forced acceptance and indoctrination along with the exclusion or elimination of their perceived enemies. So yes, they’re using a form of coerced “DEI” to ensure their viewpoints are forcibly represented to a populace that has consistently told them to fuck off, but only for the narrative of DEI as a means of institutional harm against white conservatives.
- 1y ago

deeg 1y ago

I wonder if Liberty Univ will be diversifying its viewpoint.

mc32 1y ago
Does it get state and federal funding? If it does, it should conform. If it's private and does not get funding, then I guess it can continue doing what it does...
- lokar 1y ago
  They count students paying with federal grants and loans, so yes.
- matthewdgreen 1y ago
  A quick reminder that the First Amendment of the Unites States Constitution bars the Federal government from forcing private institutions to participate in chosen political speech. The question of whether you get funding from the Federal Government should not matter, since it's the Federal Government that's constitutionally constrained from doing this. Of course if we're no longer in a place where the rule of law applies, then sentences like "if it's private and does not get funding..." hardly matter.
- UncleMeat 1y ago
  Yes. It receives federal grant funding for its faculty. Students receive federal loans for tuition. And international students can receive visas to attend it.

tdb7893 1y ago

I think framing this stuff as even a protection of conservative views is going to miss the point. They seem to want a hiring preference for conservative views and seem to want to punish non-conservative organizations at universities (e.g. LGBT organizations or views). This won't be the end to this push, it's just another step in a longer context. Edit: with NSPM-7 you can sorta see the angle they are likely to push. With a lot of the oppositional views to the government being labelled as promoting terrorism and violence.

matthewdgreen 1y ago

Yes. And partisans who control the United States government will ensure their preferred political ideas get taught by private institutions under the guise of “ideological diversity”. No diversity will be required from conservative organizations. None of this is constitutional and none of it should be happening in our country.

ModernMech 1y ago
Not just the US government but especially state governments, which control state universities: https://thedailytexan.com/2025/09/30/ut-system-announces-audit-of-gender-studies-courses https://thedailytexan.com/2025/09/30/ut-system-announces-aud... “The U.T. System has been reviewing courses on gender identity taught at all UT institutions to ensure compliance and alignment with applicable law and state and federal guidance, and to make sure any courses that are taught on UT campuses are aligned with the direction and priorities of the Board of Regents,” the UT System said in a statement to the Texan.

IncreasePosts 1y ago

[flagged]

carabiner 1y ago
"Fight cancer," are you saying that AIDS doesn't matter?

stronglikedan 1y ago

[flagged]

lokar 1y ago
It has been well documented that conservative political violence far outnumbers liberal in the US.
- josephg 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - pesus 1y ago
    > People on the left think conservative political violence is worse. But conservatives don’t see it that way. It doesn't matter if they "see" it that way. The statistics don't change because they don't like them.
    - josephg 1y ago
      I know and I agree. But politics are more often driven by perception than reality.
  - rockercoaster 1y ago
    > Charlie Kirk. We'll see what shakes out of the trial, but odds are leaning that way, yeah. > The healthcare ceo. Last I checked the guy's history read as right-leaning and it was a personal grievance that motivated it? I remember this because lots of people online were surprised/disappointed when he turned out not to have clear leftist motivations. But I admit I haven't kept up on this since the first few weeks, maybe the picture's shifted again. > Multiple attempts on Trump’s life on the campaign trail. One right-leaning guy motivated by notoriety-seeking more than politics, and the second one was some nut with a very weird past (lots of felony charges including related to firearms but somehow also lots of foreign travel to conflict zones?) and tough-to-bucket politics. > People on the left think conservative political violence is worse. But conservatives don’t see it that way. Both sides of American politics think the other side has a worrying amount of political violence. One side's leaders routinely call for violence. The other's almost never do. There's a clear difference. There's even a clear difference with Republicans pre-Trump and the modern MAGA party—their talking heads used to sometimes call for political violence, but at least their elected and appointed officials rarely did. Both do, now, and have since Trump's first campaign (remember when he suggested his followers shoot Hillary if she won? On stage, to a crowd, with cameras and everything?)

Hizonner 1y ago

> "transforming or abolishing institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas." So what "units" do they think these are, and how are they supposedly doing it? Is that what the "units" themselves think they're doing?

seanmcdirmid 1y ago
The math and economics departments? They don't really specify, and it can easily be argued that those two departments belittle conservative ideals.
- Hizonner 1y ago
  Could be. Although if that's what they're getting at, it's more likely they mean earth sciences and biology. "Yes, dumping all that CO2 into the atmosphere has measurably changed the climate and is likely to change it more". "No, the world was not created in 6 days 6000 years ago, you moron." It's a fair cop.
  - Freedom2 1y ago
    Some, especially some smart HN commenters, would say that conservatives just want to have an honest discussion without being insulted or being made to feel their opinions are wrong by default.
    - matthewdgreen 1y ago
      I think that's fair. But I also think table stakes for conservatives to expect an honest discussion and respect is to criticize and distance themselves from deeply wrong and unconstitutional proposals like the one in TFA.
    - seanmcdirmid 1y ago
      How do you effectively deal with flat earthers, or people who believe other countries pay our tariffs? Or people who don't believe in graph slopes and just say "climate has changed before"?

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

logicalmind 1y ago

The problem I see is that the term "conservative" is not defined. There are many places where current "conservatives" would be at odds with "conservatives" of just a few years ago. If you're a fiscal conservative, where did the tea party go?, you'd by furious by the spending of the current "conservatives".

hagbard_c 1y ago

So you're saying [...] https://iea.org.uk/the-newman-peterson-interview-was-symptomatic-of-the-biases-of-public-service-broadcasters/ https://iea.org.uk/the-newman-peterson-interview-was-symptom... I suspect you are aware of the existing 'progressive' bias in academia and the dearth of 'institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against progressive ideas' on the average campus while the Humanities are rife with '${identity_group} studies' departments where the discourse is centred around challenging systemic power relations in society, arguing that knowledge, truth, and social structures are fundamentally shaped by power dynamics between dominant and oppressed groups. Beyond just understanding and critiquing these dynamics, it explicitly aims to transform society through praxis and collective action with an explicit sociopolitical purpose (a citation straight from Wikipedia and as such certainly approved by those same departments). As to whether the approach taken here is the best there is room for discussion. Instead of censoring those departments it may be more effective to have those institutions erect new departments which take aim at what those 'Studies' departments and others peddle as 'their truth'. Here's an idea, now listen well. Most if not all academical institutions have sporting arenas or at least access to them. How about they fight it out in those arenas, a regular (bi-weekly or monthly) battle of ideas between the ${identity_group} studies departments and their (equally well-funded and staffed) ideological opponents? Traditional debating rules shall be followed, no shout-me-downs, tantrums, walkouts, no paint or ketchup or pie throwing, none of the sort. If the debate ends inconclusive the fight may be continued in a boxing ring following amateur boxing rules and using protective gear. Outside of these battles the departments shall behave like normal, traditional academic institutions. If some studies department wishes to transform society through praxis and collective action they can do that in their own time, off-campus, using their own funding and at their own risk. This goes for all departments no matter where they stand politically.