Rather than embracing libertarian values that could strengthen the discipline, the self-appointed mind-guards systematically frustrate any attempt to vary the narrative that sociology has developed. By keeping dissent from the classroom, good ideas are censored and good students are kept out of the major. The inclusiveness that is valued extends only to those who do not deviate from the orthodoxy.The quote it reminded me of is this one, from this talk:
Irreligion as the state religion would be the worst of all combinations. Its orthodoxy would be insistent and its inquisitors inevitable. Its paid ministry would be numerous beyond belief. Its Caesars would be insufferably condescending. Its majorities—when faced with clear alternatives—will make the Barabbas choice, as did a mob centuries ago when Pilate confronted them with the need to decide.Sociology does not need to be irreligion, but one can see what irreligion as the state religion would be like by looking at the sociology, or elsewhere in the academy, since such squelching of dissent is not confined to sociology. Ironically it seems to be particularly prevalent among those preaching tolerance.