Except you know... your rant is more accurate then you'd expect.

Marx for example is actually considered one of the big three founders of sociology.

You can't actually get through a social sciences degree without being taught a lot of socialism... as there are various theories and branches that rely pretty heavily on it.  Sociology is currently basically a case of "The Liberals vs the Socialists." (Liberals in the classic sense... and socialists in the sense of the left wing/statist/democrats.)

It's less about "So and so should be treated the same" or anything like that, but more the base and the ways they went about it.  However to do so you need to read there works directly.  Meaning direct exposure to said ideas... which in general is predudicial even with a teacher who isn't particularly left leaning with no counterweight arguement.

Entire disciplines specifically teach left leaning theory automatically... and most teachers are more likely to believe in said left wing ideas... seems pretty obvious.  If you actually think political affiliation doesn't effect how things are taught...

Why don't we look at another field where nuetrality is supposed to be the rule.  News reporting.  In the US I can name on one hand the number of reporters who's political affiliation i can't tell just by watching them.  Well actually... I can't name one.  Even Anderson Cooper you can tell though he's best at it.

The only field you could argue specifically teaches right wing theory is economics... and even then not all economics do so.

Marx founded sociology as much as Freud founded psychology. The two of them laid out theories that had some good core ideas, but were not verifiable (though part of what failed Marx's predictions was his economic prediction that wages would remain stagnant even as industrial economies grew so that only the capitalists would see the benefit of growth), but their understandings were too simplistic for modernity

The key is the difference between disciplines and schools of thought. A discipline is nominally tone neutral, but a school of thought within that discipline is where the bias comes in. (e.g. you have "Economics" and then you have "Keynesian Economics" or "Neoliberal economics."), and schools of thought wax and wane in popularity, but no discipline is itself inherently set one way or another

Anything that "offends" the wrong person, basically. There's a horrible arbitrariness to the whole thing. If you're seriously interested in what sort of things universities can get up to, you can check out thefire.org as they defend a lot of people whose rights have been squashed by ivory tower dickheads. For instance, a few years back a janitor (who was also a student) was fired from Purdue for reading during his lunch hour. It was a book about how some Notre Dame students fought the KKK back in the '20s, and a black woman who saw him reading the book was instantly offended and went and complained about racial harassment.  Even though the guy made clear to his bosses the nature of the book, it didn't mean a fucking thing. A black person was offended, and we can't have that. Only the ACLU and FIRE getting involved eventually cleared the guy's name.

An english literature professor I had went into a 15 minute bigoted rant against evangelical christians that would have been considered hate speech in Canada if it were any non-christian religion she was talking about. Don't make any assumptions that when progressive individuals talk about "Tolerance" that they really intend to tolerate anyone's beliefs or views other than the ones they arbitrarily decide are in need of protection. Much like how the most vocal anti-gay crusaders have a nasty habit of turning out to be homosexual, quite often the most vocal tollerance-crusaders turn out to have the most bigoted world view; and this can be explained by a psychological defence mechanism called reaction formation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_formation).

Oh my, that's one of the most irrational things I've ever heard. Does this happen often?

More often than it should, that's for sure. Political correctness isn't rational, and when it's more important to be politically correct than actually correct, bad shit happens.

The funny thing is how "right-winged" the same colleges can act in other ways, such as UC Berkeley forbidding student organizations to use the words "California" or "Berkeley" in their names- as if the university owns the whole city and state. And Berkeley is pretty infamous as the most batshit crazy far left university in the country.

also, i just realized your arguement is flawed in another huge way.

here in the US we have the 1st amendment, that allows for free speech. so even if someone didnt like another person with a different skin color, different genitalia, or different sexual preference. their right to do so is still guaranteed.

and to think universities are non biased and only want to stop hateful views, i just blissful ignorance.

also, i just realized your arguement is flawed in another huge way.

here in the US we have the 1st amendment, that allows for free speech. so even if someone didnt like another person with a different skin color, different genitalia, or different sexual preference. their right to do so is still guaranteed.

and to think universities are non biased and only want to stop hateful views, i just blissful ignorance.

The site actualyl had a small number of cases, considerign the size of the US, and the large number of schools (which is a good thing honestly).

Realistically, political correctness is quite a good strategy if you want to make sure you get along fine with everyone. The problem with anti-PC people is that they don't want to accept any consequences for their actions. And I'm not talking about legal consequences (which should only exist in certain situations, and the motivation for such consequences should not be that the message is "offensive"), but the fact that private individuals who are offended by such language choose not to associate with them. Not to mention that they're hypocritical (upset if their views are insulted, but have no problem insulting others, and often present such insults as "religious expression").