That being said, I attended a West Coast university during Viet Nam, and while I did have several professors who were liberal, I had one very sharp professor who was in fact was a spokesman for the government at that time. (He often was sent to Europe to explain our position to students there.)
I did learn a lot from him, and feel being exposed to his viewpoint, and the rationales for his views, gave me a much broader perspective. But a litmus test? No way. As your first responder noted, the test should be how much a teacher knows about the subject they are teaching.

It seems the only classes that professor’s may bring in their political biases and retain the subject matter of the course are in the liberal arts (English, Philosophy, Art, etc.). And these types of classes seem to be overwhelmingly dominated by liberal professors.

Now, as a law student in Michigan, I can’t help but notice that higher education leans FAR left. As I write in my papers or final exams I make sure to be a stronger advocate with the plaintiff and not the “evil” corporation. Yet, I can’t help but wonder if this is making me less of a candidate for corporate law.

It is hard to believe that a prestigious university such as Oregon would employ a professor who cannot present a formal argument without associating Republicans with the South and Jefferson Davis (implying all Republicans are Southern and racist). Yes, the South tends to be the most conservative part of the country, yet the higher education institutions are also predominantly taught by liberal professors. Socially, we live in a highly agrarian and religious society and are taught that what we will get will be a result of what we can create with our own two hands, and to never expect a handout. This is the foundation that can be attributed with our leaning towards Republicans. Everyone is entitled to their right to disagree with this. Yet, a professor that is offended by a student who wants a more diverse education is insulting. Their job is to inform and let their student decide, not spoon feed political ideologies. Professors are also supposed to teach their students to argue well. It looks like these “professors” haven’t learned not to commit ad hominem fallacies, personal attacks and generalizations in order to provide an effective argument. I wonder what institutions gave them their Ph.D.’s?

My grandfather (a staunch Clinton supporter) taught me to get both sides of the spectrum before making my own decision. If the liberal arts are flooded with “liberal” professors are we getting a “diverse” education that teaches us to look on both sides? I think not.

The first among these is the role of diversity in public discourse. I don’t share the view of some of my fellow liberals that diversity is good in-and-of-itself. Diversity – or rather, tolerance of diversity- is a good by way of the effect it has on a society. It’s good for individual members because it allows them to cultivate their abilities without arbitrary impediments of bigotry or custom, and it’s good for society as a whole because it diminishes injustice and helps the best ideas and the most capable individuals come to the fore. But in itself, diversity is neither good nor bad.

If you want to understand whether the lack of political diversity at the University of Oregon is a sign of something sinister, you’ll have to delve more deeply into the source of that state. Have any republicans been denied tenure or faculty positions, based on their political affiliation? Maybe so, but then that’s the harm which needs to be addressed, not a lack of diversity, per se. I’m not yet convinced that political intolerance is endemic to the University of Oregon, thoughtless and hostile comments from your some of your colleagues notwithstanding (there will always be somebody willing to provide these kinds of soundbites). But I’m open to the possibility, and it’s an issue that deserves careful and sober analysis, which you have not provided in either of your columns. I’m looking forward to the next one.