Professor Watchlist and Turning Point USA are extremely right wing.
According to the Anti Defamation League, “In the group’s six-year history, TPUSA’s leadership and activists have made multiple racist or bigoted comments and have been linked to a variety of extremists.”
https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/turning-point-usa
This thread is again becoming very politicized and so I am again putting it on slow mode until tomorrow.
I really appreciate how you own and share your own past bias. 
My point about comparing an academy with large public uni is more to highlight how one is immersive as you say (the academy). It has training that is very intentionally designed to reach certain goals, such as diplomacy.
You highlight a great point about how we can be blinded by bias. And it speaks for the need for parents & students to get really conscious about what it is they are looking for in their next home/place of scholarship. …Getting beneath the commonly used labels that often polarize us and are full of unconsciously-driven assumptions.
Thank you for sharing your story. 
I think Turning Point USA removing a chapter president for making white supremacist comments is the correct and necessary move. There is no place for that.
Colleges are supposed to be neutral and foster opinions on both sides. That’s the point of education. Students or activists shouting down speeches is a criminal offense. It’s called rioting, not protesting. Encouraging that behavior is inciting riots. And schools have the duty to enforce disciplinary action for this kind of behavior so it doesn’t threaten other students who don’t have such viewpoints. It should be expected that students behave like the grown adults they are, or at least claim to be.
Not just students, eh? For instance, one of the main reasons Duke reversed its decision to broadcast the adhan on Fridays from the Chapel was the number of threats of violence from outside groups and agitators, who had no business interfering in something that quite frankly did not affect them in the slightest.
Just a general comment - no specific reference to any recent events:
Students, as all citizens, have the right to peacefully assemble. But, must follow any gov’t restrictions placed on them and not incite riots.
We have a history of student protests with liberation intentions in our country. Great skills can be learned through a peaceful protest, too.
The various shades of political views, yes, should be discussed on campus.
But, should speakers be invited who spread hate regarding certain genders, sexual orientations, major religions, or races/ethnic groups? Then we cross from “view” into such areas as civil rights.
Would this best serve student’s ability to grow intellectually and responsibly? Is it our best shot at a thriving future - to allow racists and such - to guest speak when plenty of other choices exist?
And don’t we also increase our chance for violent resistance/outburst in our academic living communities when we invite them?
Not saying you are wanting those speakers, coolguy, but feel that in this particular thread these questions are worth raising
@hardy8635 here, there is acknowledgment that supremacy exists (in this case expressed through speech) and a person suffered a consequence for it.
You say, “There is no place for that.”
Is it your determination, then, supremacy is not related to racism (and other forms of discrimination), racism cannot be defined, and therefore no consequences can ever be assigned or protest should occur?
Just google the college + niche + conservative It ranks based on liberal or conservative
Here’s the full list. It won’t answer the questions - but directionally maybe it will help.
It ranks them all in conservative or liberal -
@hardy8635 is saying there’s no place for white supremacy; that it was the right thing to fire that person.
Thank you, but that wasn’t my question and his brief remark there is clear.
Also, so noone is accused of cherry picking here, we should note the moderator’s article above also points out the group’s bigotry and racism.
Additionally, these issues are not confined to one Chapter President.
I agree that politics has become too divisive. Colleges are diverse places and you’ll find a wide variety of viewpoints. Part of the maturation process is knowing that everyone is different with vastly different ideas, and everyone has a right to express it the same as you. No one has the right “never” to be offended. That’s just ludicrous. “Offended” is completely subjective and it’s a two-way street.
Okay, can we at least agree that there is no compelling reason why a college should make its facilities available to hearing “both sides” of a conspiracy theory? Is wasted time, money and other limited resources not a factor here? And, if the answer is “No” and that all assertions are of equal value, no matter how absurd or divisive they are, how, by any stretch of the imagination, is that being conservative?
The conservative label relates to free speech and allowing all viewpoints.
Who determines this? There are many speakers I would not bother going to hear nor be excited to pay for through my tuition or donation dollars who have spoken at my kids schools or my alma maters. Students should be free to determine whether to attend those events. The one caveat I when I might agree with you is commencement speakers because students can’t really chose whether or not to attend.
Most prestigious schools are predominantly liberal. Niche is a good source for finding info about the political situation at each university.
^
I agree, though it’s worth noting that the political leanings of trustees and (older) alumni are often at odds with faculty and students, which can impact hiring and tenure decisions. The recent brouhaha at Carolina over Nikole Hannah-Jones is a good example.
As Policy Watch previously reported, conservative groups with direct ties to the Republican-dominated UNC Board of Governors have been highly critical of Hannah-Jones’s work and the idea of her teaching at UNC-Chapel Hill.
Last week, a columnist for the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal (formerly known as the Pope Center for Higher Education) wrote that UNC-Chapel Hill’s board of trustees must prevent Hannah-Jones’s hiring. If they were not willing to do so, the column said, the UNC Board of Governors should amend system policies to require every faculty hire to be vetted by each school’s board of trustees.
The column laid out the playbook that many powerful conservative interests in the state would like to follow, the trustee said.
“That is the argument we’ve been hearing and that is what some people on the board of governors are expecting, I can tell you that,” said the trustee. “There is already a lot of pressure about oversight from the Board of Governors of trustees at the various schools that are not doing what they believe we should be doing, that are making any decisions they disagree with, really.”
The Board of Governors has decided not to reappoint certain trustees they felt were not on the right ideological page, the trustee said, and have even engineered the ouster of chancellors with whom they disagreed. They have defunded academic centers and discontinued programs with which they were at political odds. Trustees across the system know that track record when they’re making these kinds of decisions, the trustee said.
Mature adults with some pretense at having lived lives devoted to critical thinking and who are charging you the equivalent of a house down payment every year in order to teach your child how to do the same thing. Ninety-nine percent of the time the students can have their way with student common fees and expect nothing more than a few jeers and catcalls by way of judgment. But, you yourself acknowledge that there is a hierarchy in terms of the prestige of certain platforms and IMHO the closer the platform comes to reflecting the collective reputation of the faculty and board of trustees of the institution, the more likely and fitting it is for the adult stakeholders of the institution to intervene and call “balls and strikes”.
@hardy8635, after reading through the posts I hope your son finds what he is looking for. I myself have a conservative son just finishing his freshman year. He certainly had to endure some opposing views/thoughts especially in his English 101 class this past year. He didn’t always feel comfortable expressing his views as the professor was adamant about some topics. Why rock the boat if he didn’t have to? He did feel that in high school he potentially got a lower grade on a few assignments where he chose to take an opposing viewpoint. His thoughts, not mine.
It’s interesting to see many posters above talk about the desire for conservative students to go ahead and attend liberal colleges so that they can be sure to be exposed to opposing views. It’s interesting because I doubt all of them would be so much advocating for liberal students to attend conservative schools to ensure they get both sides of the story. I see nothing wrong with a student of any identity wanting to attend a school that closely fits their views. I also see nothing wrong with a student of any persuasion attending a school with an opposing view to broaden their horizons. Both should be the students right and choice. Why should it matter to others?
The fact is most higher learning institutions lean liberal. With the talk of service academies many here might be surprised to hear that the higher ranking military officers that I am familiar with are also many times more liberal than conservative. It’s not always easy for conservative students at these liberal leaning schools, and just as a liberal student might not be totally comfortable at a conservative school, a conservative student should be encouraged to pursue whatever college ideology they feel comfortable with. Yes, it’s good to be exposed to dissenting views but that can happen even at colleges that align with ones political views.
Again, I hope the OPs son finds what he is looking for in a college.
But, the OP doesn’t actually seem interested in conservative colleges. At least not in colleges where the majority of students are conservative. You’re correct: There are lots of those to choose from. He seems particularly interested in colleges where any speaker, no matter how disreputable, has equal access to college platforms. And, no one here can think of a single place that fits that description.
There a difference between being offended and being dehumanized, just saying…
And this is what’s wrong with the US higher Ed system right now.