Feser is still nuts, and he's mad at everyone who called him on it. He's got another diatribe up on Tech Central Station.

It's more whining, so I'm not going to dig deeply into it. I just want to mention a very few things. First, here's a complaint that is comically reflexive:

No, I don't really think that left-wingers like Hitler. The point was rather that, given the actual content and historical development of Fascist and National Socialist doctrine, there are far more connections between it and the modern Left than there are between it and the modern Right. Therefore if, as so many Leftists like to do, you are going to play "pin the Swastika on the donkey," it follows that it is far more plausible to pin it on the Left than on the Right. So, Leftists should, if they are intellectually honest, stop playing that stupid game, and in particular quit using the tired "Nazi" and "Fascist" labels to smear anyone who disagrees with them. All clear?

All clear, sir. You don't think left-wingers like Hitler, they are like Hitler. And leftists don't get to play stupid games and smear their opponents with tired insults because that's your job. Yes, sir.

OK, but he does ask a semi-serious question, and one that is worth considering. Unfortunately, while it is interesting in its general form, he then breaks it down into what he considers relevant sub-questions, which really only reveal his bizarre biases.

The real question is whether on balance, in general, students tend to become more liberal as a result of their university experience; and this question can, for clarity's sake, be broken up into a number of sub-questions:

1. Are students today, on balance and in general, more likely after having attended university to be hostile to capitalism?

I don't even know what this means. What is the concern about hostility to capitalism? Is Feser worried that students will graduate and move en masse to a commune, or start plotting to blowing up the stock exchange? If that's the case, then no, it is not more likely. If he means, "will students have a better awareness of the weaknesses of capitalism and the advantages of other systems", then yes, I certainly hope they do come away with that. Or does Feser want us to instead indoctrinate students into believing in the perfection of the capitalist system?

2. Are they, on balance and in general, more likely after having attended university to think that modern industrial society is inhuman, devastates the environment, impoverishes the Third World, etc.?

Yes, I certainly do hope they do. Industrial society does devastate the environment and has harmed the Third World. If our students don't come away knowing something about the flaws and tradeoffs of the system, how will they ever be able to work to correct them? Are right-wingers required to ignore deforestation, global warming, pollution, and degradation of soil and water?

3. Are they, on balance and in general, more likely after having attended university to think that differences in wealth, income, and the like between the sexes and between ethnic groups are the result of deep-rooted sexism and racism in American society?

I should think they'd also be learning about other contributors to inequity as well, but yes. I'm not at all sure what Feser would propose as an alternative. That sexism and racism don't exist, or that they don't contribute to economic unfairness? Are poor people poor because they deserve to be poor?

4. Are they, on balance and in general, more likely after having attended university to believe that the history of Western civilization is largely a shameful history of oppression and exploitation?

They certainly will. After all, part of our history is opression and exploitation, so if they've recieved an honest education in the subject they will be more likely to recognize that than if they'd gotten the kind of jingoistic rah-rah Western history Dr Feser apparently favors. Is he unwilling to admit that there has been a significant amount of oppression and exploitation in our cultural history (as well as everyone elses!)?

5. Are they, on balance and in general, more likely after having attended university to believe that there is no rational foundation for traditional religious belief, especially of the Christian sort -- indeed that Christianity is a uniquely repressive and irrational creed?

It is definitely true that the more educated you are, the more likely you are to reject organized religion. I don't think anyone singles out Christianity as unique, though—I'm not exactly rushing out to embrace Islam or Zoroastrianism or Hinduism. They're all equally silly. I presume Dr Feser would like us to teach that Christianity in particular is a rational religion? Piffle.

6. Are they, on balance and in general, more likely after having attended university to believe that traditional moral scruples, especially concerning sex, lack any rational justification and ought to be abandoned as mere expressions of superstition and bigotry?

Maybe. But it's more likely due to the fact that universities are institutions that bring together curious young adults in their sexual prime than that we professors are preaching licentiousness at them.

But let's return to the original question: do students tend to become more liberal as a result of their university experience? I think that is probably true, and I think that is a good thing. After all, what does it mean to be a good liberal? I think it means, in part, that:

• you are a critical thinker, and that you don't simply accept the word of authority.
• you revise your ideology to fit the facts, rather than revising the facts to fit your ideology.
• you are open to alternative views, and don't automatically assume that your view (or the view of Westerners in general) is the best.
• you consider economic and social inequity to be an injustice, and one of your principles is to reduce it.

There are weird people who call themselves liberals that I'd probably denounce as vigorously as does Feser, but strangely enough, the America-hating Marxist wacko seems to be even rarer on college campuses than ranting right-wing ideologues like Feser—while the majority of academe may be left of center, it's not that far left, and it certainly doesn't correspond in any way to the caricature he makes of it.

Even more strangely, I believe a lot of good conservatives also learn the values I listed above; I don't think conservativism itself is inimical to open-mindedness or critical thinking. However, the pathological kind of conservativism that Feser endorses, which apparently to his mind is the only acceptable kind, is the antithesis of what we want to see graduating from our universities. If we aspire to excellence in our students, we certainly wouldn't want to produce the kind of bad conservatives Feser represents.

(There's also a good discussion of Feser on Crooked Timber.)