<p>
</p>
<p>I think you’re confusing “free-thinking” with “open-mindedness” or “balance.” “Free-thinking” and “free-thinkers” have a very particular historical meaning: those terms identify a strain of secular, humanist thought that emerged in England in the late 1600s and in France in the 1700s, in opposition to church dogma and a literal interpretation of the Bible. The view of the free-thinkers was that humans should be guided by their own reason and experience. They were not necessarily atheists; many formed their own religious societies, but their fundamental belief–their dogma, if you will–was that each person has the capacity to form his own views in all matters, including matters of religious belief. To that extent, it was a radically secular, anti-clerical, anti-organized-church movement. </p>
<p>I took that to be the tenor of the OP’s question. To which the answer is, just about any elite academic institution; I’d say almost without exception they’re dominated, or at least heavily influenced, by secular humanists whose views bear some kinship to those of
the 17th and 18th century free-thinkers.</p>
<p>I do agree with the counter-proposition that it’s intellectually healthy to be confronted with ideas contrary to your own. Maybe you’ll learn something, maybe you’ll change your views, maybe you’ll just more finely hone your arguments in favor of your own positions, but it will be worthwhile. But I think that’s almost bound to happen on any campus with a sufficiently large and diverse student body.</p>