Today’s [university] radicals are considerably more ferocious–and more radical–than those of the 1960s and 1970s.  They seek not to marginalize but to eliminate.  Any attempt to consider multiple points of view on serious issues in the humanities or the social sciences now risks being labeled as aggression and offense.  Where true liberal diversity once sought to recognize and understand points of view different, indeed contrary, to  our own, obedience to this new brand of “diversity” demands silence and recantation.  Alternative sociological views are in danger of being branded racist; much of literature threatens to be labeled homophobic or sexist; unseasonable philosophical inquiry into the meaning of morality and justice risks disturbing today’s “social justice” warriors, who already have the only acceptable answers; and all potential deviations from today’s orthodoxies are evidence of systemic racism in need of perpetual diversity training and reeducation classes.  Into all this a phalanx of thought-review administrators–“diversity inclusion and equity officers” as we learn from Ol’ Mizzou–now watchfully police the campus.  Nor is it simply offensive speech or racist slurs that “trigger” a radical response.  More serious, more offensive would be honest debate and reasoned argument.

Gone is any hope that under the regime of contemporary multiculturalism and diversity students will experience “enhanced classroom dialogue” (as the Supreme Court recently opined) and learn from one another.  Can, for example, an open discussion of the causes of black poverty or black crime–other than “racism”–be held in many campus sociology classes?  Can honest discussions of equality and its limits or the character of human nature be openly discussed in political science?  Today, identity politics masquerading as a demand for diversity has turned the university world upside down.  Some of our once best liberal arts universities risk becoming the most anti-intellectual institutions in the nation.

John Agresto, “Snowflakes and Storm Troopers,” Academic Questions 29:2 (Summer, 2016), pp. 150-151.

The task of the scholar in the arts and humanities is to remember the past and bring it to the present–an essentially conservative vocation which in a university context can inform the sciences and impress them with meaning and responsibility.  But when ideology has in fact quarantined the past as a persisting source of moral and intellectual contagion, the need for, and task of, these scholars is over.