Indeed, it may be low given faculty reluctance to admit political bias or the delusion of others that they are without it. Yet, the virtual purging of Republicans from most departments reveals a long-standing ideological exclusion in higher education.

While far-left hires are common, even a moderate Republican is a rarity on faculties in a country with a majority of conservative and libertarian voters.

Even assuming that many faculty members will not expressly acknowledge their bias, this forty percent is willing to state that they will vote against candidates based on their political views without any consideration of the intellectual content of their scholarship.

In my book, "The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage," I discuss these arguments to justify the current levels of intolerance and orthodoxy in higher education.

I had dinner with a Harvard Law Professor, who expressed disbelief that I expected him to vote for any faculty applicants who held views he considered wrong. When I noted that I regularly vote for faculty candidates who hold opposing views, he just shrugged and said that, if he rejects their views, he cannot vote for those views to be taught to students.

There are few remaining conservatives or libertarians on law school faculties, which have been purged of dissenting voices through a biased hiring and promotion system. Despite years of complaints and declining public trust in higher education, faculty members continue to reinforce bias and orthodoxy in our schools.

I wrote about the rise of this new McCarthyism on the left seven years ago.

Recently, I discussed the example of Fordham University School of Law professor John Pfaff, who called for "repercussions" for professors who do not "recant" their view that the 14th Amendment does not protect birthright citizenship.

Tolerance is intolerable for professors like Pfaff. After the decision in Trump v. Barbara, Professor Pfaff went on BlueSky to vent against anyone who dared to voice a dissenting view in academia, calling such faculty "parasites" that have to be effectively stomped out of higher education. In his post, Pfaff declared:

"There MUST be repercussions for the lawprofs who advanced such untenable arguments. Their behavior is — and I mean this literally, not dehumanizingly — parasitic.

They exploit norms of collegiality and presumptions of integrity to advance trash. Which undermines the work of ALL of us."

His rationale for punishing opposing viewpoints is an insight into the arguments used against intellectual diversity and institutional neutrality in higher education.

I recently participated in a debate with the President of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), who opposed the principles of institutional neutrality.

Some sites, such as Above the Law, have supported the exclusion of conservative faculty.  Senior Editor Joe Patrice defended "predominantly liberal faculties" by arguing that hiring a conservative law professor is akin to allowing a believer in geocentrism to teach at a university.