There is no greater rallying cry at American universities than that of supporting "diversity." On a near-daily basis, we hear of some new program that ostensibly furthers this value.

What does "diversity" mean though?

"Diversity," as applied by the American Association of University Professors' (AAUP) website, means that "the Association is committed to use its procedures and to take measures ... against colleges and universities practicing illegal or unconstitutional discrimination ... including, but not limited to, age, sex, disability, race, religion, national origin, marital status, or sexual orientation."

But diversity is not applied to discrimination against that which is ideologically on the political right. None of the AAUP categories relating to diversity references "academic freedom," which the AAUP claims is central and "[indispensably is] conducted for the common good."

Nowhere in its section on "Defending Diversity" does the AAUP claim to support the profoundly disenfranchised conservative members of the academy and their academic freedom. Nor is there a stated concern regarding what many of us regard as the raison d'être of the academy: promotion of the "marketplace of ideas," the unfettered rhetorical competition that produces the best outcome in value and policy consideration.

But if there is systematic ideological discrimination in academia, that outcome violates the precepts of meaningful diversity and produces a propagandized higher education that systematically limits and homogenizes academic inquiry and intellectual growth — all while disingenuously proclaiming respect for differing points of view.

The hostile environment accorded conservative professors, students and their work affects countless facets of the academy: recruitment, hiring, promotion, tenure, curriculum decisions, and practically all of the day-to-day activities of university life, including student activities. This unfriendly climate means that liberal ideas dominate campus life, while conservative involvement and values languish.

Surveys confirming the left-wing domination of the academy are plentiful, but for just a taste, David French stated in FrontPageMagazine.com that:

A recent study by Stanley Rothman, S. Robert Lichter and Neil Nevitte found that 72 percent of professors teaching at American universities are liberal (by their own description) and 15 percent are conservative. At elite universities, the ratio was 87 percent to 13 percent.

There is, as the book "The Politically Correct University" points out, an entire supportive sociology and rhetorical substructure maintaining political bias in the academy, all of which promotes demographic diversity "while largely eschewing political diversity."

For example, in my field, communication studies, many of the members of the umbrella National Communication Association (NCA) are proud of what they believe is their opposition to discrimination, especially in the academy. But they do not oppose discrimination per se. They oppose discrimination against certain groups, such as African-Americans, women, LGBTs, disabled people and certain others. What most NCA members do not oppose — and even support — is discrimination against conservatives — especially, again, in the academy.

Moreover, in addition to unequal policies for those on the left and those on the right, there is the unsurprising anti-conservative sociology of members, which restricts participation in the NCA and creates what one of my colleagues calls conservatives' "marginalization" in the association's politics and interactions. You can always get a laugh at our conventions by disparaging George W. Bush, but I have never yet seen Barack Obama ridiculed. Not once.

My own university, Towson, is in many respects an oasis in the academic politically correct enforcement agencies' desert. But even at Towson, where I have been treated better than any conservative I know at a liberal university, I have been refused public relations assistance by one university employee for the offense of criticizing specific liberal media (which criticism I perform as a professor who has for two decades taught an advanced course in media criticism).

What are some of the specific manifestations of the prejudice against conservatives in my field?

For one thing, untenured professors are afraid to let their conservatism be known. Such revelations, they say, compromise promotion, tenure and office-holding for them at their universities. Professors, tenured and untenured, claim that conservatism in article submissions to major journals is poison, eliminates many co-authorships and leads to rejection time after time.

Furthermore, anti-conservative bias is so pervasive that it seems to simply be the natural order. Sponsored research grants are a large part of the academic trade, and the great preponderance of available monies in social sciences and humanities — certainly in the field of communication and elsewhere — are targeted for liberal or progressive topics only.

It should be noted that there are exceptions in American higher education to the claims of diversity and ideological bias made in this exposition. But they are few.

College and university administrators and faculty throughout the United States cannot reconcile their support for diversity with their discriminatory policies against conservatives, and there is no source motivating them to do so. Therefore, there is not much hope for substantial change in the diversity hypocrisy that suffuses the American academy.

Richard Vatz is a tenured full professor of rhetoric and communication at Towson University. His email is rvatz@towson.edu. This article is derived from a blog published in "The Daily Caller" on June 14 and a paper given at the AAUP national convention on June 10.