I'll pass on the straight line you gave me, equating "better education" with the teaching of liberal ideas...but thanks anyway.

The answer to the question of why conservative ideology isn't taught in universities may have a simple explanation that arises from human nature.

At the university level, traditionally the teachers are supposed to also be thinkers. Professors are supposed to do research and publish papers to contribute to their fields. Right from the start, then, there's an intellectual bias towards change and the new, and I think that's an obstacle to promoting a philosophy that at root is about defending the status quo. Delivery of a settled dogma is indoctrination, not learning; and is not unreasonably viewed as just the beginning of education, not its final goal. I share the belief that true education is open-ended, and so it's not surprising that there's a natural resistance to an ideology which claims eternal and absolute truth, and views the world in stark black and white. In one sense university professors might feel that conservatism simply threatens their jobs, if there's nothing new to learn or think about in the realm of politics and social science.

Think about the stereotypical graduation speech, all about the "leaders of tomorrow" who are going to change the world for the better. I'd say the university culture tends to value the future more than the past, and think of themselves as agents of change in the world. Conservative ideologies don't promise change, but rather in most instances are opposed to change (except "forward to the past" retrograde change, i.e., "restoring the good old days").

To put it in less delicate terms, I think perhaps people who consider themselves intellectuals might find conservativism simply boring. The brain game is a lot more interesting when it's about thinking new thoughts and discovering new things. That doesn't mean rejecting the old things, but rather to say that dreaming up better things that improve on the old things is more interesting.

That's all quite a pile of generalizations and stereotypes. There are conservative universities (often with a religious mission--note the connection to dogma?), and there are certainly a lot of unimaginative professors whose outlook on life, if not their espoused philosophy, is quite conservative. Some people defend liberal ideas with a distinctly conservative approach, turning liberalism into a dogma too. But this is human nature we're talking about, and people tend to try to be consistent with their own self-image more than they worry about reality. I think on the high-concept level there's some truth in these generalizations. People whose self-image is that of an intellectual, valuing new ideas and wanting to be an agent of change, will tend to find a philosophy that advocates change to be more personally congenial than a philosophy whose heart is "change is bad".

I could be wrong...and I'm sure you'll tell me exactly how, Tom.