At my university we accept students as they are, but we certainly do not expect them to leave our institution as they entered.

I often reflect on that simple premise as I watch them grow and mature, ultimately taking their places as informed citizens in a democratic and increasingly multicultural society. The developmental processes leading up to their point of departure form the bedrock of our existence.

Thus, I am somewhat puzzled by a growing number of external social critics who argue that our higher education institutions are becoming “too liberal.” What exactly does that mean?

For example, a student, such as my younger self, may come to college from rural America and may or may not be exposed to the rich diversity of thought and complex mores found in more cosmopolitan regions. In that case, shouldn’t the aim of a world-class education be to expose that student to their blind spots — thereby challenging them to think deeply and critically?

Shouldn’t we purposefully help students from various backgrounds put our shared history in the context of the present? Shouldn’t we equip them with analytical and communicative skills that will enable them to responsibly contribute to the ongoing evolution of our national character and destiny?

If a college education does not promote these objectives, how can our academic institutions be advanced as a force for good in the world? These are by no means rhetorical questions.

Our colleges and universities must be preserved as intellectual discovery zones, where free speech and academic freedoms are intentionally safeguarded. If not, why bother? That said, I do not see evidence (of any scale or significance) to substantiate the claim that our collective curricula and pedagogies are “leaning left.”

Instead, we may simply be witnessing the emergence of new interpretations and fresh insights that critically challenge social phenomena that are truly worthy of closer critical examination. To make the point, many of our students have ideas and aspirations regarding how our society might be transformed for the betterment of humanity. Others critically observe social inequalities and are continuously disturbed by a global economy that generates “thousands of winners and billions of losers.”

Their viewpoints and those of our faculty lean neither left nor right but might better be understood as a heartfelt search for creative and more humane alternatives to the status quo.

Thus, we should resist the temptation to politicize or sanitize the college curriculum to a point where we shun or suppress opinions that challenge previously held points of view or longstanding beliefs. That’s the equivalent of turning college campuses into child care facilities, where truth is blatantly ignored because it makes some students uncomfortable.

Are we supposed to pretend that slavery did not happen; that the genocide of Native Americans did not occur; and that the ghastly Holocaust was somehow a figment of our imagination? Are we to gloss over or, worse yet, purge history of these ugly occurrences in the name of political correctness? I think not!

We must allow ourselves to examine these atrocities in the bright light of historical interrogation and help students exercise their historic imagination in both a backward and forward direction. Here, we would do well to remember the words of Maya Angelou, who astutely observed that, “History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage, need not be lived again.”

I firmly believe that our campuses cannot afford to devolve into learning environments where students are shielded from uncomfortable truths and force-fed banalities that only serve to promote a hollow form of patriotism and an uninformed grasp of history that serves no constructive purpose. Again, our students may enter college with many uninformed and narrow perspectives and predilections.

Still, our quintessential goal must be to sharpen their critical awareness and deepen their human sensibilities so they might graduate as defenders and “architects” of 21st-century democratic reforms. Thus, our pedagogical responsibilities do not reflect a shift to the left but rather a full-throated reaffirmation and contemporary expression of our most cherished democratic ideals.

It seems like more and more people are increasingly convinced that a college education makes a person think “too much” and that professors bring too many of their personal views to the classroom — challenging students to wrestle with previously held views that could have been shaped by undue exposure — as mine once were.

In essence, it seems as if large swaths of our leaders and citizens are advocating for a more homogeneous and somewhat “dumber” nation. What sense does that make?

Our nation is in danger of stifling one of its most precious resources — higher education — when elected officials in particular view campuses in the same way they view their political parties. Critical thinking and open dialogue serve the common good. Diversity of opinion is a highly valued trademark of any viable college or university.

If or when those opinions are shaped or buttressed by misinformation, alternative facts and half-truths, it is the responsibility of conscientious learning communities to challenge them and not be hesitant or trepidatious in doing so. That is why we in the academy consider academic freedom to be essential to the boundless search for knowledge and truth. After all, the freedom to pursue inquiry without reprisal from governors, state legislators or the courts is the sine qua non of the university professor.

In retrospect, I am so happy that many of my college professors put so much editorial red ink on some of my earlier papers. Today, I can only blush when I recall the many unfounded assertions, half-baked arguments and abject gibberish that I submitted for their critical review.

But hope springs eternal, and today I am grateful for having discovered the power and majesty of books and the indispensable necessity for reasoned discourse.

When colleges do what they are supposed to do and expose students to history, philosophy, science and the humanities, reinforced with concepts and constructs of scientific inquiry, we are doing our jobs well. But when we think we can no longer do such and turn colleges into low-calorie, nutrient-free knowledge campuses, we can only expect an intellectually impoverished nation.

David K. Wilson (david.wilson@morgan.edu) is president of Morgan State University.