I can guarantee that a student who is…I don’t know, say, a devoted communist…feels •far• more uncomfortable expressing their full views on campus at a college in the US than a student who believes in Milton-Friedman-style economics as a force for good.

Complaints about whose political views need special protection are less rooted in who’s actually oppressed than in who thinks they’re entitled to never being questioned.

2/

But there’s a wrinkle here, one that’s crucial to unwrinkle: the word “conservative” has long had a double meaning.

Many of our political terms do. In the US, for example, “liberal” means “left” unless you’re a leftist in which case it means “laissez-fair” or “neoliberal” or something incoherent but Definitely Bad. (I refuse to even use the word “socialism” anymore without specific clarification about its meaning in a given conversation.)

It’s the double meaning of “conservative” in particular that muddies this discussion about views on campus.

3/

In •public discussion• about conservatives supposedly being oppressed on campus, people act like that means free markets, minimal government, centering religion, etc.

But the •actual experience• the loudest complainers are talking about is very often (not always, but •very• often) that they were ostracized for being transphoic, queerphobic, racist, and/or religiously bigoted.

“Conservative views” gets to mean something polite and acceptable in op-eds, but then gets to mean outright fascism on the ground.

4/

And this is where the discussion gets hard.

There are some mission-based things that are not up for negotiation. Our mission is to create an environment where students can learn. We create a bubble of personal safety within which students can become intellectually uncomfortable. That latter •requires• the former. That is our job.

If one student makes another unsafe — not intellectually challenged, but in actual danger — that is not OK. It does not magically become OK because we deem the threatener’s threats “political.”

5/

One of the ground-level premises of my institution of higher ed — and of most of them — is that everyone deserves to feel safe on campus so that they can learn together, with one exception (per Karl Popper): you’re not welcome if you don’t accept this premise.

So yes, there are some beliefs that are unacceptable on campus. No Nazis.

6/

And yeah, if you use racial slurs, or sexually harass people, or refuse to call people by their name, or misgender them, or personally denigrate them for their religion…in that case, you are indeed not welcome in my classroom.

Interrogate and debate the biological and social construction of race and gender and identity and whatever all you like — these are complicated questions, many unresolved, many resolved but still in need of hashing out for those newly learning! — but the •required• starting premise is that we all keep each other personally safe.

7/

This is messy and complicated in practice. Keeping each other safe is real work, and hard work. None of us (including me) get it right 100% of the time. All that’s required is that we try, that we believe we are •supposed• to try. That is not negotiable.

8/

So if you want to argue that we need poltiical diversity on campus, that we need to allow “conservative” views, please be clear. Be specific.

By “conservative,” do you mean we need to make sure there’s room for people to argue for market economics? Or low tax rates? Yes, we need room for that. I will fight to make room for that that debate even if I disagree.

Or by “conservative,” do you mean we need to accept white supremacists? Or that it should be OK to tell people they’re going to hell for being queer or whatever? No. Piss off into the sun.

Tell me which one you mean.

/end