Just finished Russell Kirk's treatise on Academic Freedom (no longer in publication).  Released 50 years ago at the time the academic community was reverberating from the McCarthy hearings, I find many of the arguments appropriate to today's discussion brought on by David Horowitz (ironically - an EX-communist) and his attempts to legislate "Academic Freedom" as Mr. Horowitz defines such. 

There are many salient points, but I find this position taken by Mr. Kirk to be telling of the distance between true conservatives and those who have taken the label as cover:

First, let me set down my premises as to the relationship that ought to exist between the State and the Academy.  In ordinary circumstances, the State  (by which I mean any political organ of society) should abstain on principle from taking any direct part in the guidance or governance of our institutions of learning; and the Academy, taken as a body, should abstain on principle from a preoccupation with politics. (Academic Freedom : An essay in definition, pg. 141).

Horowitz's minions claim indoctrination by institutions is the reason legislation is needed.  However, poor excuses for faculty do not an institutional conspiracy or doctrine make.  Prudence is needed on this very issue as well as much introspection by the faculty and administration of institutions of higher learning.