Really? Seems like a typical parenthetical elite, with all the connections and intrigue that go with it. His history is a standard playbook of actions benefiting himself and his people over everyone else.

His speech elicited a walk-out. It was received very badly and it led to his ouster.

As far as I can tell he’s done well for himself since then, but that’s because he already had a network of connections.

One misconstrued speech was all it took to ruin a chance to lead a premier east coast uni.

This thread started as a discussion about Liberty discriminating against boring rank and file faculty/gay students, and ended with “the world is ending because being president of an elite university is a GASP political job!” (Newsflash: uni prez is a deeply political job in every sense of the word and has been since the birth of the university many hundreds of years ago)

The idiocy of that conversational arc is basically the point I’m trying to make.

Liberty Uni is heavily biased. Let’s get that out of the way.

Now I’m responding to the assertion to that one doesn’t need to be of a certain stripe to make it in liberal institutions.

You downplay and say that a Harvard pres. position is highly political; which is fair, but the reaction also shows that a pervasive and intolerant groupthink is present.

It may tolerate the odd dissenting professor, especially if they’re protected by tenure, but the buck stops there.

No such protections for students first making their way into the world.

Not exactly a bastion of free thought and discourse.