It used to be considered a mark of scholarly disinterestedness and love of truth for an academic to advocate moral or political positions which, were they to prevail, would be much more likely to harm than favor his personal interests. It is indeed noteworthy that the academic Left's advocacy no longer fits that profile, whereas the far smaller academic Right's does fit it. Given their, um, lifestyle choices, the former are far more likely to benefit from gay marriage, abortion on demand, and other nostrums of liberalism than the latter, who in turn have benefitted far less if at all from the status quo ante and whose views certainly put them at a disadvantage in the academic world. Why is it, then, that conservative scholars are less given to attacking the motives of their opponents than are liberal scholars? Simple enough: the worldview of the latter makes Bulverizing seem natural and inevitable.
How the clock turns. When I was entering college, it was the Right that was considered anti-intellectual. Nobody says that anymore.