There have been a series of articles recently in the New York Times about the intolerance liberals display towards conservative christians, especially in academia. The articles by Nicholas Kristof are incisive in their irony, that the group which prides itself on diversity and acceptance is so radically intolerant of certain ideologies. I've seen a good bit of this myself as a recent graduate. The classroom politics in my liberal arts seminars were almost dystopian in their ideological purity. But to assume that this is illogical or out of place misses one the central tenets of group psychology.
The illuminating work by Jonathan Haidt speaks compellingly to the moral and cultural value of conservatism as a social construct. More relevantly his work builds off the theory that people are able to group together into larger organizations when they are exclusive to some degree. A group maintains itself best when it is defined against another group. This is not to deny the critical importance of internal identity, rather it insists internal identity depends on external comparison. To be part of one group one must be somehow not a part of the opposing group: capitalists vs. communists, atheists vs. theists, carnivores vs. vegetarians, liberals vs. conservatives. There must be some qualification for an in-group member and an outsider. This is one of the strongest binding forces for a group, if any more convincing is needed, think of a time when you felt more patriotically American than right after 9/11. Groups are more groupish with a common outside pressure to be resisted.
In this light, liberals are not irrationally excluding conservatives in an ironically hypocritical way. The exclusion of conservatives is a manifestation of the fundamental group psychology: a subconscious gatekeeping, to maintain the cohesiveness of their group. This is something conservatives grasp and capitalize on far more effectively. They have clearly defined boundaries for who and what can be accepted culturally into their group and they are paid back in spades with a tremendously more cohesive set of communities. This may be why small towns in the south are more neighborly than tenants of an apartment block(I still don't know half the people on my floor).
Liberalism is still a group, and it still benefits from defining itself against something. It is a difficult ideological position though. Inclusiveness is one of liberalism's cherished pillars, so what group can be excluded without tremendous cognitive dissonance? Of course, the group to exclude are the excluders themselves. Those groups whose ideological membership is clearest, and consequently exclude so many, are the groups liberals define themselves against. The includers, define themselves against the excluders. Conservatives, especially evangelical conservatives are groups whose membership is clear and exclusive, easy targets for this type of group psychology.
The exclusion of conservatives by liberals in universities, their bastions of liberalism, is perhaps bitterly ironic. But it is certainly not surprising when one considers the powerful group psychology at work. This is a battleground on liberal's home turf and it will take more than an admonishment in the paper to affect genuine change in that mentality. Groups naturally self-preserve. Asking liberals to cede their ground to the only outgroup they can reasonably define themselves against, is asking them to dissolve as a group. This may be the way to bring liberalism in line with its grand aspirations of inclusiveness but it is also likely to erode the cohesion and effectiveness of liberals as a group. It's hard to ask an organism to harm itself. This conversation, if it is earnestly taken up, will be a long ride before we reach any workable consensus.
