Your (and others) use of "mechanism" is telling; your mind is likely pointing to something visible, formal and therefore publicly addressable, and what I'm trying to get at is that the oppression we dealt with is none of those things. Majority type power can oppress without that.

If you define it that way then people with non liberal views have an even stronger case. I agree completely that social expectations have a large ramifications, such as self-censorship, which is artificially propping up liberal ideaology in the Universities.

Once again -- this has nothing to do with academic freedom. Are you trying to derail the topic on purpose?

You appear to be under the absolutely ridiculous illusion that "academia" as a space for discussion is a self-evident isolated bubble of safety. I wish it were that, and I literally work most days to try to make it that way, but it ain't that way.

You keep saying words that appear to make sense but actually don't in the context of this post. Pretty much like politicians do. What is your point exactly? You said that academia is more free now than in the 90s -- is that your point? If so, this point is incorrect, because in the 90s there were no political witch hunts against academics that are prevalent and widespread nowadays.

And I'm telling you that even though there were no visible witch hunts, there absolutely were forces that suppressed certain types of thought, only they weren't framed that way. It was simple racism/sexism/homophobia etc.

Simple metric. Look at the makeup of "tenured faculties" back then. Overwhelmingly white and very male. Do you seriously believe that such a make up could nonetheless provide a diverse cross-section of thought?

To me diversity in itself has no intrinsic value. Such make up means white males were more rigorous in their pursuits, that's all. Also, I don't think your numbers are even accurate -- a quick google shows that 44% of tenured are female.