Protecting the marketplace of ideas

It's been decades since I've voted for a Republican for President. I think it unlikely that I will break that streak this year. But, recently, I have been concerned about the left-wing's willingness to compromise the openness of the marketplace of ideas. I would have considered it the openness of the marketplace of ideas to be a very liberal idea.

But consider this piece on Robert George. According to this piece, he's a bigot, his views are not politically adequate, so he should be stripped of an endowed chair at Princeton. Do they give endowed chairs to be people because we like what they say?

I think academic independence from politics and ideology is a great value. For example, I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with Thomas Nagel. What makes me mad is when his philosophical arguments are attacked not because he is mistaken, but because they give aid and comfort to political miscreants like ID advocates. Consider this from the Nagel-Weisberg review of Mind and Cosmos.

The subtitle seems intended to market the book to evolution deniers, intelligent-design acolytes, religious fanatics and others who are not really interested in the substantive scientific and philosophical issues. Even a philosopher sympathetic to Nagel’s worries about the naturalistic worldview would not claim this volume comes close to living up to that subtitle. Its only effect will be to make the book an instrument of mischief.”

So we can't say certain things because it might become bulletin-board material for the bad guys. Really.