It’s not “some conservatives are ok”, it’s that the concept of “uniform conservatism” isn’t one that I see much of. Fiscal conservatism and social conservatism are two very different things and why must someone be both or neither?
Among my kids friend groups basic LGBTQ rights aren’t open to debate (except for bathrooms where there are mixed views and trans in sports where there is zero support) and they really don’t understand why people should care. That holds true for her very devout friends and the not so devout. They all hang out together and without knowing you couldn’t tell them apart.
Regarding fiscal conservatism (and politics to a large extent), they just aren’t that interested and they have better things to argue about.
But, that’s how he would present to most people: a charming white guy from a (presumably) middle-class home. If he plays a decent bass guitar, and can time travel, even better.
Yeah, I really try hard in conversations like this not to tell concerned conservative students how comfortable they should feel in different sorts of college environments. That is very much up to them, and I think the best we can do is share insights and information and possible avenues of further inquiry, and then leave it up to them to decide what would or would not work for them.
And speaking of which, I completely agree that things like hearing from that conservative kid at Yale are particularly helpful, and I would also encourage the OP to try to do more of that. Look up conservative student organizations, maybe connect with some conservative students, and see what things look like from those insider perspectives.
In my kids’ friend groups (and in our public school system), the ability to use the bathroom and play sports aligned with your gender identity are considered basic LGBTQ+ rights.
This is a perfect example, by the way, of how one person’s “openness to opposing viewpoints” is another person’s “denial of human rights”—and why the question launching this post is more complicated than it seems.
All of these colleges have plenty of finance bros and tech bros who espouse libertarian positions. I doubt they go around thinking about free pre-school very much but they will likely have no problem telling someone about the inefficiencies created by government interference in free markets or how communism / socialism is a failed ideology because it runs counter to basic human nature. There are plenty of these people on Wall Street and in tech and they all come from schools like the ones mentioned by the OP.
I would disagree with this being a good example. The positions espoused by the friend group on sports are held by a very small minority, even at the schools mentioned by the OP. If the OP is worried about schools being that far to the left, that should not be a concern.
I live in the Bay area so our friend groups are pretty inclusive. I come from a different area of the country and unfortunately I can say that what we think would be common decency doesn’t hold true for everyone that I know including some (mostly older) relatives.
I know of almost nobody who is intimately involved with sports who agrees with what I believe to be the position that you feel is the majority. I do think that there is a very stark difference of opinion between participants and those on the outside looking in.
It’s is a great place and represents the epitome of what solid growth and prudence can accomplish over time. But I don’t think today’s graduates would recognize the Amherst College of twenty years ago. Alex Keaton would have fit right in when they were still called, The Lord Jeffs (after Lord Jeffery Amherst, a British General.) Today’s Mastodons, IMO, would require quite a bit more social dexterity on his part. Twenty years ago, I would have called it a Dartmouth back-up; today, I would compare it more to Wesleyan University and Brown.