[carefulobserver]

How should I interpret your argument? Are you arguing that any publication that uses this keyword is dismissed in a popular context, or that you specifically dismiss the piece whenever you see this keyword?

If I assume that you're arguing that you dismiss, it is difficult for me to imagine a 'balanced' version of this piece. As far as I can tell, the argument of the piece is essentially: "Forcing people to espouse political views as part of a tenure process is hurtful to academia's mission of discovering truth, here are specific examples of a doctrine that folks are being forced to espouse, this should concern us." I find this line of argument unobjectionable. If I 'balance' the argument, it could become: a) Reasonable people disagree about whether forcing people to espouse political views should be incorporated into the academic tenure process. b) Some universities don't do this, so it's maybe a trend, maybe not a trend.

a), though technically 'balanced', seems false to me facially; I confess I have not met anyone who thinks that politics rather than pursuit of truth should drive university hiring. I have difficulty imagining someone making this argument in good faith. b) is very similar to the content of the article, which posits it as a growing trend, but with an explicit qualifier. I don't think it adds much for the careful reader.

What do you think though? Is there something I'm missing?