In other words, "group-think" - and that would be leftist group-think. From no less than the New Republic:
My point was not that discrimination causes the underrepresentation. My point was that there is an underrepresentation of conservatives for many legitimate reasons, but once the percentage of conservatives drops below a certain threshhold (5%?), a tribal moral community forms, and it is only at that point that discrimination becomes a serious force, which discourages the occasional conservative (or liberal Christian, or just centrist non-liberal) who would like to join the field.So, do you really trust those people to interpret history for you? More here.
That comment and article dovetails nicely with an email I just received from an equaintance:
So, go ahead, keep denying it. That just makes you all the more irrelevant to everyone - except those within your small, tribal (group-think) community.
Regrettably, there "ain’t" many “sane historians,” in Academia, and I do mean "ain’t." I’m one of the few . . . "Hillbillies" with a Doctorate from an Ivy League school. A rare breed indeed . . .
I still continue to teach the "Civil War" and American History in general, on a regular basis . . . (for over 20 years). I have to literally, "re-educate" the students and tell them the "other side" of the story their textbooks, and other professors NEVER tell them. Most of them have no problems. I just teach them the truth and let them always know, if they want documentation for anything I say, to let me know and I’ll give them all they want.