The mail on anti-conservative bias in the academic humanities keeps coming in. This from a lawyer who studied English at Berkeley and then went on to law school at the University of Chicago:

The last few days' exchange on what truly passes for (and is condemned as) "conservative" in the humanities was very insightful.

I think that Horowitz, et al, make a terrible mistake in focusing their efforts on the proportion of registered Republicans in humanities faculties. This gives tenured radicals an unearned rhetorical defense against censorship and political oppression, when in reality they are the censors and oppressors. Anyway, I don't really think we're going to get a lot more Republicans pursuing humanities academia no matter what we do -- there'd be much more bang for the buck in efforts which would encourage Democrats and non-political types to resucitate modes of analysis other than post-colonialism and other more-or-less noxious modes of study, and, basically, teach and think more honestly and open-mindedly.

Of course, there's always been a part of me which says, "let them have it." Academic humanities sucks in literally thousands of the smartest and most ambitious of leftists and renders them harmless -- they can't do actual damage to the economy or to communities outside of their college towns. If we had to have a purge, I'd start it in the schools of education and public health, where the leftists firmly hold sway, and aren't content to limit their influence to the quad and refereed journals.

I also think that the big losers in this whole process are liberal students. Conservative and moderate students get a bracing lesson in the unreliability of authority (professors) and the intellectual slackness of modern leftists. Liberal students get indoctrinated and lose whatever hope they had to develop the capacity of critical thinking, and also lose the ability to actually read and enjoy literature, appreciate history as actual history (what happened, when, and the likely reasons why). My own experience bears that out. Studying English as an undergraduate at Berkeley, I saw many liberals get absolutely nothing out of course after course after course. Studying law at Chicago, though, with its strong corps of conservative and libertarian faculty and students, I saw liberal students consistently confronted and led to examine their ideas and biases. Some didn't stay liberals. Many stayed liberals, but with a better understanding of their own views, and a new ability to articulate their views with some nuance.

UPDATE: Another reader, this one a graduate student in history, takes issue with parts of the above:

I am a Ph.D. student in American History, with a focus on Early and Revolutionary America. I cannot tell you how difficult it has been for me. The difficulty is not academic as much as it is social. Many of mine friends who decided not to pursue graduate degrees did so because they knew their personalities would negatively affect their academic success. Furthermore, for the most part, I am ìcloseted.î

Anyway, the reason I write is because I would like to rebut the post that states ìAcademic humanities sucks in literally thousands of the smartest and most ambitious of leftists and renders them harmless -- they can't do actual damage to the economy or to communities outside of their college townsî

I think this article contradicts this assumption. The problem is academia legitimizes these radicals instead of keeping them in the margins. It affords them a platform that they otherwise would not have. Donít get me wrong. I think they are entitled to their beliefs and I actually think academia is a good place for them so they can offer new perspectives to students. However, there needs to be a balance, which there is absolutely nothing close to.

And the worst part is they are so blind to their own hypocrisy. By and large they are a group that hates any sort of institutional power, yet they wield it, along with hateful stereotypes, without even knowing it.

I really think this is caused by the maturation of the radical Leftists of the 60's who have now reached positions in the academy where they can have influence. Their "hate and blame America, the true 'evil empire'" infuses the curriculum now being taught to our children. I can guarantee you discussion of race, class and gender dominate these textbooks, leaving students both perplexed and generally uniformed. ÝI think unbiased historical perspective has been overshadowed by the personal activism of the authors.

Another case in point is the exhibit that is going to be unveiled when the Liberty Bell is moved to the spot Washington lived as President. The theme of the exhibit surrounding the bell is called "Liberty Denied." It has been run by a self-proclaimed radical historian from UCLA and the focus is going to be on the plight of African-Americans, Native Americans and immigrant communities that often encountered hardships. It chronicles, through photographs and artwork, the way the country has systematically "denied liberty" throughout its history, including today. Now let me be clear, these are not unimportant discussions, but, in my opinion, it should not be the main exhibit leading up to the Liberty Bell. What type of message does this send to Americans, foreigners (who may be anti-American enough already), children, etc.? What about the millions that came here escaping persecutions, what about the Irish immigrants who left certain death during famines in their land, what about the social mobility that does exist in this country? This case has been under the radar, but I certainly think it should be picked up by someone in the national news.