I’ve worked at a few mainstream papers, so once in awhile I’m inclined to defend them. This is one of those cases — I think the reporter did a fine job reporting on the university and, if anything, I’d say the libertarian institution (and especially its head) comes off in a positive light.

The first alleged criticism is simply a statement of fact, that all students have to take courses in market economics, etc.

The second criticism doesn’t take place until the eleventh paragraph, and even then it’s presented as the criticism of critics, not of the reporter. The very next paragraph is the school head’s response, and he likes the criticism.

Also, I don’t see “moral equivalence” in the third example; the reporter simply states that, while other schools were rabidly leftist, this school actively promoted free-market ideology. To point out a contrast is neither to take sides nor to imply equivalence.