About my comment to speak with those on campuses and learn about dialogue. I’m reacting to the general summary dismissal of liberals as being anti-conservative. (That’s rather boxy thinking, no?) Clearly, the authors did speak with conservative professors and came up with what they purport is a pattern. But I’m cautioning about leaping to conclusions based on this work which, in itself, may be slanted. Purposely.
I don’t assume anything about hiding in a park. It’s pretty curious- in fact, at first, seems to me a dramatic ploy. Poor prof, looking over his shoulder lest the KGB spot him. For heaven’s sake, they could have met at a coffee shop or anywhere that allowed some privacy. But no, the park bench allows one to visualize, get the creeps, and sure reminds me of House of Cards or Scandal, where they meet secretly, on a bench, outside range of snooping devices.
"Finding out wasn’t easy, in part because so many conservative professors are—as they put it—closeted. Some of the people they interviewed explicitly said they identify with the experience of gays and lesbians in having to hide who they are. One tenure-track sociology professor even asked to meet Shields and Dunn in a park a mile away from his university. “When the sound of footsteps intruded on our sanctuary, he stopped talking altogether, his eyes darting about,” they write. “Given the drama of this encounter, one might think that he is concealing something scandalous. In truth, this professor is hiding the fact that he is a Republican.”
There’s a point at which, Claremont McKenna, CO, or Oxford notwithstanding, you have to say, “Oh, c’mon.”
And chew on this: don’t you ever think that some liberals also hide some of their outlying beliefs? Don’t you know anyone who’s, eg, progressive on certain social issues and, on others, fiscally conservative, but keeps it out of conversations, for good reasons? Can we be fair to both sides?