Neither of your two Quinnipiac articles show intentional misleading - they are more typical of folks hashing out surveys after the fact. Neither were surveys mass mailed to people asking for donations to the cause either.
And how in the world does something sports related they did even fit the subject?
Yes always best to paint your opponent as the extremist and your own views as moderate. That’s Gramsci’s theory of counter-hegemony.
I just thought that it was human nature! 
If this new university truly invites both sides and they get into debates it could be worth bringing 
How long until it would delve into a fistfight?
No, that’s the difference between respectful disagreement, which drives attempts to find a middle ground, and declaring your opponents view as illegitimate, which drives a win at all costs mentality.
It is the classic revolutionary tactic to undermine a society so you can take it over: Counterhegemony - Wikipedia
So you expect students to hit their tutors or vice versa? Or that assault on invited speakers will be permitted? Why assume that the debates they want to encourage are simply between students? More importantly why assume that violence is the inevitable consequence of disagreement?
Sadly, because when armed thugs invading the Capitol is normalized to “tourism”, fistfights are probably the best outcome. It shouldn’t be that way, but I am realistic to believe that it is.
In the article cited in the OP, words are used to describe the “other side” as “maniacs”, “hijack”, “authoritarian”, “insane asylum”, “crazy” etc.
Somehow, I don’t think this institution is going to be a bastion of free-thinking and open intellectual debate.
And I think Gramsci’s counter-hegemony concepts have now become human nature, at least for many, because it is now part and parcel of the American political system. And increasingly, at all levels, the American educational system is tied to those political battles.
I don’t think NF meant Thatcherites by the term “fascists” – he was demonstrating that in his days two extremes could coexist in amicable civility (though I think the rose-colored glasses of nostalgia are not rendering reality as it may have been experienced in general at the time); far from being one of the extremes of the spectrum, Thatcherites were certainly mainstream at Oxford (even if they were fiercely opposed.) I admit I thought he meant students but he might indeed have meant tutors, in which case there were many communists (though not at Magdalen) at that time!
Clause-4 Labour v. Thatcherites? 
However, there can be no civil disagreement when one side of the dispute advocates making subordinates of or killing the other.
Do all disagreements have a middle ground?
No they do not. There are some things that clearly wrong or right.
I struggle to think of any disagreement in the mainstream of our current political system where there isn’t a utilitarian compromise that could improve overall welfare. Sometimes that’s only a local optimum as the degree of change needed to get to a more global optimum may simply not be feasible (consider for example healthcare).
But most compromises leave one or both sides unhappy. That’s especially problematic when what is best overall conflicts with minority “rights”. An emphasis on satisfying minority groups leads to outcomes that are less optimal for the majority (and therefore have an increased potential for backlash). But it’s possible to have respectful debates about how to weight those considerations.
Where it becomes particularly problematic is if there is an attempt to make everyone into a member of a specific group which claims “rights” (whether that’s eg to bear arms or have an abortion) that can’t be infringed in any way and suggests that any attempt to do so is illegitimate.
But all government activities and laws impinge on your freedom of action, and I think most people would agree that we are better off with a government, even one that does some things that are not in our personal interests, than without.
To me, if a survey produces a trash result, it doesn’t matter if there was intentional misleading or not.
But if intent matters, that is exactly how the sports article is applicable to this situation. The Quinnipiac admin made what you might characterize as sleazy arguments in the Title IX case.
If we were to test all colleges for purity, most would cease to exist. It is an imperfect landscape. I believe Hillsdale is a good option for the right student. And I believe the same about Quinnipiac.
How often does the actual critical race theory (as opposed to what many seem to be imagining it to be) come up at all in any course other than perhaps in a graduate seminar in social sciences or law school, or an undergraduate course specifically about ethnic studies, regardless of the instructor’s political leaning?
That’s definitely “to you” and not to most people out there, esp in the academic world. I suspect your desire to promote Hillsdale has predisposed you to making your judgment.
Intentional vs not matters for pretty much everything in life, from murder on down to a kid breaking something in the house.
Not really, but you have your reasons for making the two related. I don’t see how sports and education go together at all personally. I literally pay no attention to any college sports except occasionally looking at my Alma mater’s scores if they’re on a screen. But most of the time I fast forward the entire sports segment of any news since we watch things on our DVR.
First, regarding your comparisons of the Hillsdale poll to Quinnepiac, I’m not sure your whadabout-ism works here. Sure, Quinnepiac polls are not perfect. Sure, no polls are perfect. Sure, no college is perfect. But the Hillsdale survey isn’t even a poll. There are no results, no intended results, no analysis of the results. It is a fake poll. It is purely marketing. Misleading marketing aimed at fundraising. Fill out the survey and you get this, a request for money: Socialism | Hillsdale College
But this the way things go In the world of whaddabouts. Minor errors and imperfections (Quinneapiac surveys) are justification for phony fundraising schemes (Hillsdale surveys); if they aren’t perfect, we can have no standards whatsoever.
Second, and more importantly, nobody has “cancelled” Hillsdale. It still exists.And given it is still running its phony marketing survey, it must be pretty lucrative to bring in the donations and hawking it’s President’s book. But surely, if people object and/or disagree, the survey is worth comment and criticism, isn’t it?
Is it really “cancelling” a college to form an opinion based on the college’s own words and actions? Is Hillsdale somehow immune from criticism and consequences for its own action?
Yes, @Creekland has cancelled Hillsdale. She no longer recommends the school to her students, despite Hillsdale being home to some very bright students, and presumably a suitable destination in the past for some of her students.
Yes, the poll / fake poll / survey / marketing tool they use is open for criticism. But I think it is unfair to characterize an institution as a clown school based on a marketing decision. There are plenty of marketing decision whaddaboutisms that you would probably agree are valid, but going into that takes the thread off course.
Forming an opinion about Hillsdale is not cancelling Hillsdale, nor is acting accordingly. You may disagree with the opinion, but looking at the survey and website, it is hardly without basis.
You are conflating „truth“ and „value“. In a way, the problem in a nutshell.
Oh dear. That is so stupid and naive it’s almost cute. Communists and fascists may have felt no limitations in what they could say because either they weren’t really communists and fascists, just called that by the “other side” - or because neither side was in power. Because, you know how communists and fascists cancel one another when one side (or actually sometimes neither, but the centrist institutions are weak) is in power? They kill. Just ask…well, you can’t ask them, they’re dead. Not moaning all over conservative media that they are being cancelled, when “cancelled” means “there is a high school teacher in Pennsylvania who may not recommend a specific niche college any more”.
Edited to add or maybe because to Oxford undergrads at the time, everything was just an intellectual game. Or maybe just a game. I know, I was there. Some of them go on running a country like this.
However central one thinks that Hillsdale survey should be in the making of an assessment of that college there is no denying that it is both a religious and a conservative institution. I can’t help thinking that’s its real offence in the eyes of its critics. Well, if there’s room in my world for Antioch College, and there is, there’s room for Hillsdale. I didn’t know much about it until the present discussion prompted me to learn something. Here are some interesting bits: It was founded in 1844 by Free-will Baptists who were Abolitionists. It admitted black students from the time it opened its doors. It was the second school in the nation to grant 4-year degrees to women. It was the first American college to have a charter prohibiting discrimination based on race, religion, or sex. Frederick Douglass spoke on its campus. Oh, and in 1956, its football team was slated to play in the Tangerine Bowl but withdrew because its black players were not to be allowed to join the white players on the field. It’s an ornery little college that has always gone its own principled way.
It’s a school that won’t be everyone’s cup of tea, and no doubt it has its pros and cons. It definitely does have a conservative and classical orientation that modern progressives would find uncongenial. If that’s your reason for not liking it, that’s fine with me. To pin your dislike on a survey seems disingenuous. Why not just say that you don’t like the place for being what it is - conservative? Are there any places that might be called conservative that you DO like?
@Tigerle , you are being a bit cryptic. You will have to explain to me what this “problem” and what this “nutshell” is that you say my “conflation” of truth and value has perpetrated. Is truth not a value for you? But while you’re at it please also explain why my phrase “truth or value” is a “conflation” of the two terms. The word “or” is disjunctive. That’s pretty basic grammar. But, if you believe further clarification is required, I will put it this way: some people - maybe you are one of them - refuse to believe in even the possibility of either of those things.