【文章內(nèi)容簡(jiǎn)介】 g to repress left wing , on many college campuses, it is liberals trying to repress conservative ideas, even asconservative faculty members are at risk of being an endangered species. And perhapsnowhere is that more true than here in the Ivy League.
　　In the 2020 presidential race, according to Federal Election Commission data, 96 percent of allcampaign contributions from Ivy League faculty and employees went to Barack Obama.
　　Ninetysix percent. There was more disagreement among the old Soviet Politburo than there isamong Ivy League donors.
　　That statistic should give us pause amp。ndash。 and I say that as someone who endorsed President Obamafor reelection amp。ndash。 because let me tell you, neither party has a monopoly on truth or God on itsside.
　　When 96 percent of Ivy League donors prefer one candidate to another, you have to wonderwhether students are being exposed to the diversity of views that a great university shouldoffer.
　　Diversity of gender, ethnicity, and orientation is important. But a university cannot be great ifits faculty is politically homogenous. In fact, the whole purpose of granting tenure to professorsis to ensure that they feel free to conduct research on ideas that run afoul of university politicsand societal norms.
　　When tenure was created, it mostly protected liberals whose ideas ran up against conservativenorms.
　　Today, if tenure is going to continue to exist, it must also protect conservatives whose ideasrun up against liberal norms. Otherwise, university research amp。ndash。 and the professors who conductit amp。ndash。 will lose credibility.
　　Great universities must not bee predictably partisan. And a liberal arts education mustnot be an education in the art of liberalism.
　　The role of universities is not to promote an ideology. It is to provide scholars and studentswith a neutral forum for researching and debating issues amp。ndash。 without tipping the scales in onedirection, or repressing unpopular views.
　　Requiring scholars amp。ndash。 and mencement speakers, for that matter amp。ndash。 to conform to certainpolitical standards undermines the whole purpose of a university.
　　This spring, it has been disturbing to see a number of college mencement speakerswithdraw amp。ndash。 or have their invitations rescinded amp。ndash。 after protests from students and amp。ndash。 to me,shockingly amp。ndash。 from senior faculty and administrators who should know better.
　　It happened at Brandeis, Haverford, Rutgers, and Smith. Last year, it happened at Swarthmoreand Johns Hopkins, Iamp。rsquo。m sorry to say.
　　In each case, liberals silenced a voice amp。ndash。 and denied an honorary degree amp。ndash。 to individuals theydeemed politically objectionable. That is an outrage and we must not let it continue.
　　If a university thinks twice before inviting a mencement speaker because of his or herpolitics censorship and conformity amp。ndash。 the mortal enemies of freedom amp。ndash。 win out.
　　And sadly, it is not just mencement season when speakers are censored.
　　Last fall, when I was still in City Hall, our Police Commissioner was invited to deliver a lecture atanother Ivy League institution amp。ndash。 but he was unable to do so because students shouted himdown.
　　Isnamp。rsquo。t the purpose of a university to stir discussion, not silence it? What were the studentsafraid of hearing? Why did administrators not step in to prevent the mob from silencingspeech? And did anyone consider that it is morally and pedagogically wrong to deprive otherstudents the chance to hear the speech?
　　Iamp。rsquo。m sure all of todayamp。rsquo。s graduates have read John Stuart Millamp。rsquo。s On Liberty. But allow me to read ashort passage from it: amp。lsquo。The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it isrobbing the human race。 posterity as well as the existing generation。 those who dissent fromthe opinio