In response to this, Dave Silverstein, executive director of the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa, e-mails:

I think your post yesterday about small “c” conservatism in higher education is right on the mark. There can be no doubt that too much of the Academy is dominated by an entrenched body of professors and administrators who brook no change in the campus status quo. Whether we are talking about enforcing politically correct speech, demanding taxpayer support in the form of student loans and government grants, or maintaining bloated ranks of academics whose obscure specialties are of limited benefit, the universities don’t like change. The idea that the denizens of the Ivory Tower should compete in the marketplace of ideas, or for customers (students) is often viewed as intolerable. Of course, without competition (another pesky, small “c” word) the campuses can only become irrelevant backwaters.
This is particularly true in ASMEA’s disciplines: Middle East studies and African studies are noted for slavish devotion to political correctness and post-modernism. The dominance of Edward Said’s notion that only Arabs (or sufficiently politically correct, anti-West scholars) can legitimately study the Middle East is one example of this. Another example is the enforced belief that all the troubles of the regions are due to Western racism, sexism, and imperialism; the poverty, tyranny, and human rights abuses all rife in the Middle East and Africa could not possibly be the product of local malfeasance. Despite their failings, these ideas have held sway for at least four decades and show few outward signs of being discarded.
The small “c” conservatism that maintains and expands upon these bankrupt theories has about as much chance of retreating on campus as big “C” Conservatism has in making real gains. Sheltered from competition on campus there is no incentive to explore the liberal (small “l”) ideal.