What was Edwards using? XXX-rated films? No, far worse. He was exposing sensitive student psyches to writings by conservatives and Christians.

Edwards teaches a class called Introduction to Educational Media at California University of Pennsylvania, for which he assigns a variety of readings. But back in 1989, one student complained to the administration that some of the materials were, well, offensive. They "attacked" (the student told a university official) communism, evolutionism, feminism and the ACLU, among other things. They were "Christian fundamentalist." Impermissible items included books that suggested religious people and conservatives face censorship and intimidation (Cal Thomas’s Book Burning and John Whitehead’s The Freedom of Religious Expression in Public Universities and High Schools), articles from newspapers like The Wall Street Journal and the Houston Chronicle, and newsletters from critics of feminism like Phyllis Schlafly.

When all was said and done, Edwards was told to pull the materials. He went to court, challenging the university’s action, citing not only the First Amendment but a collective bargaining agreement under which the university guaranteed professors’ freedom to choose classroom materials, urging only that they avoid "controversial material that has no relation to [the class’s] subject."

Although several education professors testified that Edwards’ materials were indeed relevant to the class — and several students testified that the professor did not proselytize or even make his own religious beliefs apparent to the class — the court found against Edwards. The case wound through the court system for a few years, ending last month when the Supreme Court — which typically selects only a handful of cases to deal with — declined to hear Edwards’ appeal.

I’m no attorney, so I’ll bypass any comments on the legal merits of the case. I’d rather talk about the fact that the university picked these particular views to silence.

There’s more to be said than the obvious point that academia has a double standard. Everyone knows by now that conservatives and Christians aren’t welcome on the average college campus, and that all the talk of "diversity" and "the free exchange of ideas" usually disappears as soon as someone voices certain religious or political notions.

The interesting question is: What does this say about the confidence — or lack of confidence — campus "progressives" have in their own views that they cannot abide dissent?

After all, liberals generally regard conservatives as the product of mere programming, mindlessly repeating things they were told by their parents and Sunday school teachers. (The attitude was well displayed by a Washington Post writer who once described pro-lifers as "poor, uneducated and easy to command.") By contrast, liberals like to regard themselves as independent thinkers, boldly challenging the ideology bequeathed us by our primitive, Bible-believing ancestors.

Yet if they really believed this, they’d have no fear of debating such intellectually inferior opponents. They’d see no need to cry "foul" when conservatives challenged them, any more than a lion would protest being attacked by a kitten. They’d expect to win the battle, and win rather easily.

Instead, liberals are forever seeking to avoid a real battle of ideas. Their most common tactic is a pre-emptive strike, blasting opponents out of the water with explosive, emotion-laden labels: "racist," "sexist," "homophobe," "fundamentalist." (In court a university official criticized Edwards for being a "fundamentalist," as opposed to holding a "more liberal Christian faith" — the sort which the college presumably could have tolerated.)

When I see people use this tactic I tend to suspect they’re driven by fear. There are other possible motives, of course. A man might be arrogant enough to think having to debate an opponent is beneath him, or bully enough that he finds perverse pleasure in smearing other people. But more often than not, I think, he’s afraid of what his challenger has to say — perhaps that his challenger may actually be right — and doesn’t want to deal with that prospect.

Liberals used to make this point themselves. In denouncing McCarthyism during the 1950s, they argued that fear was driving Americans to forget principles they were supposed to believe in — free speech, due process, fair play. Although they exaggerated the extent to which that actually happened, they nevertheless had a legitimate concern. The label "communist" then had a powerful emotional impact in those days.

Now, argues Edwards’ attorney, Craig Parshall of the Pacific Justice Institute www.pacificjustice.org (a group that defends religious liberty), we’re seeing an anti-Christian, anti-conservative McCarthyism.

"There is an intellectual witch hunt going on in many universities — not all, but many — in which those who dare to speak out from a Judeo-Christian perspective are being hunted down," Parshall told me. The victims "are facing loss of privileges, loss of esteem, and outright professional defamation."