Grads defend liberal bias

Princeton University has a token conservative on the faculty (Robert P. George), drawing this alumnus praise:

Especially in light of the heavy liberal bias that exists on the current Princeton administration and faculty, it is refreshing to learn that “it’s not unusual to find Professor Robert George engaged in a dialogue about constitutional issues,” and that “it’s a major focus of his classes.”

But a brainwashed recent alumna complained about it:

The basic premise of science is that change is inevitable and in many ways, if understood, beneficial and revolutionary. We may consider “liberal bias” to be revolutionary in terms of the citizenship rights and alumni donations that allowed me to attend the University. ...

The liberal perspective toward change is intrinsic to higher education in the United States and for this, thank goodness. What are education, science, and governance if not the acceptance of the basic premise that change will happen and that we can have an impact on its direction? I rue the day when my alma mater or any other loses this bias. In its absence is the reproduction of the status quo, which while admirable as an ideal, requires us to ignore the watches on our wrists.

So she thinks that conservatives are folks who refuse to accept the time on their own wristwatches? She probably did not have a conservative professor. Who even wears a wristwatch anymore?

She probably did take a class at Princeton that taught her that science was all about revolutionary change, in a leftist Marxist sense. I did when I was a student there.

Another alumnus wants that professor to be re-educated:

he might benefit greatly from sitting in on an introductory economics course, and perhaps one on the history of the 1930s.

This is another incoherent letter. Is he blaming conservatives for the Great Depression?

You would think that if a liberal Princeton graduate is showing off how stupid George is, then he or she could actually address some opinion of his.