When observing the political battlefield that is the media bloc, many liberals note that there are often far more liberal pundits than others. This leads to the not-entirely-true case that many conservative or libertarian arguments are not supported by facts and therefore should be treated with less regard. However, as this articles clearly illustrates, the real problem is that many conservative scholars feel that their opinions will not be well received in the modern world. However, progress is being made, and, especially after Trump's election, more and more non-liberal scholars are finding the courage to finally speak out.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/08/22/153-conservative-academics-come-out-of-the-closet/
The statement to think of oneself as a scholar before a conservative struck me as quite interesting.
Interesting! I definitely fell into that faulty logic about the reasons for why it seems like there are more liberal pundits.
I think it's always important to note the source and their biases, as the Federalist is a predominantly conservative/libertarian journal. That being said there's an interesting argument to be made. I think a lot are probably put off in terms of social issues because among those who in academia that argument has mostly been won. Economics and such has always been easier for conservative voices to prevail for a number of reasons, which he mentions. Which also leads to I think that same bias in the opposite direction, where you see more conservatives in economics than liberals, or at least more represented. I think this is an interesting and in some ways vanishing (at least in the media) segment of what my father would call the "country club conservatives" who were economically conservative and perhaps socially as well, but knew when their opinions on social issues would be taboo.
I also think there should be a difference between the idea of people not accepting someone's idea because they are close minded or because it's just something that is morally repulsive to them. For example, if you don't like country music or hip hop or classical music because you perceive it as being a certain way without necessarily having tried to interact with it non-judgementally, that's being close minded. And if you are thoroughly opposed to a certain religious idea (whether it be christian or muslim or buddhist or whatever) without trying to at least place it in the context it comes from, that's also being close minded. But that's not the same as someone who is conservative who disagrees with gay marriage, that thing that more and more people are realizing is a really weird and dumb thing to get mad about, especially if you are libertarian.
I think you should be able to discuss your ideas as you please, but I also think that comes with some consequences. If you go around trying to rationally debate people, in a way that's respectful and nuanced (something I'd imagine academics are better at than the average person) you probably are going to at least avoid enmity. But also for a lot of these issues, the writing is on the wall, and it's clearer than anywhere else at certain universities. So I think it's positive that people feel free to express themselves, but only as positive as their ability to also be able to take the criticism that comes their way.