This is an interesting topic because it says a lot about "right" wing attitudes altogether.

Those on the "right" generally like to pretend that they do not have any ideological bias's and that they see "realiy" as it is.
It also implies that the "right" way is the only way of seeing things.
And that ALL other ways are both relativistic and have some ideologically power seeking or social engineering agenda(s)---but not us "right" thinking true believers who see "reality" true or as it "really" is.

Such attitudes are both a conceipt and a delusion.

It is also interesting to note that those on the right set up various "WATCH" organizations such as Culture Watch and Campus Watch.
The purpose of such outfits being to closely monitor those who not see "reality" true---those who are un or anti American/Christian/Western/Australian.

When (not if) fascism finally comes to the USA all the relevant baddies will be thus well and truly known in advance---they WILL BE the first to go. Remember too that those on the "right" in the USA have all of the guns, and are more than willing to use them. The angry militias and the Aryan "nation" paranoids for example.

There is at least one similar outfit here with the title Culture Watch run by Bill the mule who sometimes features on this forum.

It is interesting to note that Bill and his USA friends make much of books with titles such as "Above All Earthly Powers" and "Total Truth" and "Wedge of 'Truth'" etc etc.

Bill was/is fullsome in his advocacy/praise of Above All Earthly Powers---Bill knows and even possesses the "truth". Dont you worry about that.

The political & cultural import of such books being that Bill and his fellow (WATCH) true believers are "above" worldly politics and are only doing "christs" work on this planet and have "god's" mandate for doing so.

Perhaps the student who complained doesnt share all of these (Above All Earthly Powers) power seeking agendas, but in my opinion she has plugged in to their agenda(s).

I take no issue with academics who hold strong or unconventional political views, but to be taught by an ideologue of any political persuasion, left or right, is a pain in the butt. By an ideologue I mean someone who can only see the world through the lens of their own ideology, who systematically misrepresents or demonises those they disagree with, and who refuses to accept the validity of, or give credit for, arguments that contradict their own views.

At various times in my youth I had teachers like that from a variety of ideological and religious persuasions. Most were poor teachers, more interested in proselytising than educating.

Equally, I had many great teachers, again some from both the far left and the right, who loved to debate an issue, encouraged their students to disagree with and criticise them, and gave credit for well-constructed and substantiated arguments even if they vehemently disagreed with them. These were a joy to be taught by, and more than made up for the other mob.

Because none of us is able to achieve complete neutrality and objectivity, especially on issues we are passionate about, educational institutions should encourage a diversity of opinions and perspectives amongst their teachers. But to my mind the key issue is not so much what an academic believes, but how that influences the way that they teach, and especially how they deal with contrary opinions

Many lecturers are leftish. But the coercion is far stronger between peers in the student body, IMHO.

More importantly being leftist does not preclude depth and intellectual fair-mindedness. That critical value is what distinguishes a university-calibre teacher, not the absence of political opinions.

There are many leftists, however, who are tribal or religious in their use of arguments. It doesn't matter if its TRUE or FALSE, what matters is if its what 'my side' are saying. Hence so many trivial slogans against bushhowardhitler.

And starting apbout the 1970's we exhalted the value of OPEN-MINDEDNESS above truth, and built the system of identity politics on it. There are people who advance by the party line rather than other criteria, and they act like enforcers. I met one such lecturer, who became a government minister, and his speaking style was a series of unsupported slogans followed by the mantra 'Are we together?'. His country? Zimbabwe.

A little bit more academic rigour required here Jay thompson. Everybody is political to a degree and like Jay Thompson fight for their political positions. Irrespective of downplaying, denial or being so called "apolitical" which is usually a "cover".
Your thrust Jay is to attack the miriad form of left liberals from the right: So you are not devoid of politics. You also quote (and side with) a very right wing political party.
Jay says "a new initiative by the Young Liberals entitled "Education, Not Indoctrination”, which aims to “stamp out bias in education”. Behind this right wing line is an advancement for a further march to the national right. There is no mention of the support for turning education into a large profiteering enterprise which undermines education which the reactionary Young Liberals supported

Are there academics who brazenly force students to agree with their political views?
Yes !
On a personal note in 1983 I have witnessed with eyes & ears where a Nth Qld school principal told a class of 10 year olds; quote "tell your parents they must vote Labor" unquote.
By socialising with them one will find that 95% of school teachers are very Labor orientated.
I found that most public servants are Labor orientated but when things go haywire they blame, yes you got it, the conservatives.
I in no way wish to imply that the conservative side is better but it is an indisputable fact that in general they are better managers.

'I in no way wish to imply that the conservative side is better but it is an indisputable fact that in general they are better managers.'

I don't think it is not in dispute at all. It strikes me that kind of demonstrates the author's point as to how the argument is frames from the right that they are mere expressing the 'mainstream' or 'rational' position that is not political.

I hate to chose such an easy target but to claim for example the Bush administration are better managers than.. well you get my point.