My suggestions: Stop using "viewpoint diversity" to mean "conservatives get to talk more" and recognize that the conservative reaction against academia is mainly driven by a broad *expansion* of diversity in voices, which conservatives categorically oppose.
There's a reason that conservative framing around diversity boils things down to roughly two sides of "conservative" and "liberal."
It allows them to ignore the fact that we ALREADY have broad diversity, and to frame themselves as the marginalized "side."
And so: voices of every ethnicity become not a multitude of ethnic voices, but "ethnic studies." And so with every facet of gender studies, and religious studies, and all of THAT get boiled to one side: Liberal.
Against which conservatives posit themselves the whole other side.
So of course the side that wants to be the "normal" side of a binary against a broad spectrum of diverse voices they boil down to a single "side" is going to feel marginalized.
Their framing is anti-diversity. It is *structurally* anti-diversity.
I think conservatives could be capable of bringing thoughtful ideas to a marketplace of ideas that ALREADY supports a broad diversity.
Largely what they've opted for is complaining to have their already-rejected ideas subsidized.
As long as "conservative" remains—by conservatism's own insistence—structurally anti-diverse, any institution committed to diversity of thought must categorically reject it, at a structural level, to preserve diversity of thought.
That's not oppression. It's opposition.
"Why is there so little room for CONSERVATIVE thought when there is so much room for gender studies & queer studies & racial studies & ethnic studies & religious studies &..."
That's called being one voice among many. That's what diversity is. Get used to it. Everyone else has.
"Why is there so little room for CONSERVATIVE thought when there is so much room for gender studies & queer studies & racial studies & ethnic studies & religious studies &..."
The only reason that would be difficult is if conservatism makes no room for any of those things.
Case in point.
When the existence of a broad diversity voices strikes you as nothing more than a series of homogenous attacks, it’s a good indication that your worldview has a framework that is structurally anti-diversity.
Awareness of wrong carries a clear moral mandate to admit it or reject it. Admitting it carries a clear moral mandate to help fix it, or refuse to. Agreeing to fix it means paying the cost of repair.
I'd observe a lot of people don't want to know, because they don't want to pay.
This is why conservatives have set their sights against awareness itself.
2016: FUCK YOUR FEELINGS
2017: YOU LOST GET OVER IT
2018: DRINKING UR LIBERAL TEARS
2019: FOUR MORE YEARS BITCHES
2020: STOP THE COUNT
2021: ummm have you guys even *tried* reasoning with us?
No reasoning with those who have rejected reason. No seeking solutions with those who want to create the problems. We’re not negotiating with terrorists.
The right to vote isn’t something to be earned through anyone’s definition of intelligence or awareness or by any other metric, and it’s not something we have to convince the right or anyone else of in order to defend it.
Think of someone who believes voting is bad. Would you ask them to convince you? Not if you have no interest in the proposition. To ask them to do so would be dishonest.
They don’t want to be convinced. They have other ends.
What they want isn’t to be convinced through data on “intelligent and informed” metric that it would be good to make voting as broad as possible.
They’ve no intention of being convinced.
What they want—ALL they want—is for the right to vote to be something that’s up for debate.
Republicans believe in "cancel culture." What they object to is "criticism culture."
They don't want scrutiny. They want silence.
They don't want dialogue. They want obedience.
They don't want democracy. They want authority.
They'll use every tool available to them to get it.
Whenever Republicans talk about "cancel culture," they never mean the violence committed against a man, pushed out of a park for the color of his skin.
They always mean the social consequences that might befall the racist supremacist doing the pushing.
Serious Aside: I love Crystal and Hines (and a really good supporting cast!) in RUNNING SCARED very much, also it’s exhibit A in how normalized the idea was by the mid 80s that police brutality and abuse of power was not only necessary but self-evidently good.