It could reasonably be considered to be a liberal (or leftish) position on education itself that the student’s legitimate purpose in the classroom is to push boundaries, to integrate their actual felt experience into the assignments, to stand up for what they believe in etc AS WELL AS to demonstrate appropriate proficiency in the materials and concepts assigned. And reciprocally, it could reasonably be considered to be a more conservative position that, no, the pupil’s purpose in the classroom is to learn the material and demonstrate the proficiency, and leave their social or political or personal axes at the door to be ground in some more appropriate place.
In light of that I’m gonna give you TWO answers, one reflecting the more liberal attitude and one the more conservative.
Yes, some of the people teaching at the college level (ranging from people like me, grad students teaching incoming freshmen in intro courses to fully tenured published importantly-ensconced professors teaching grad student seminars) are not only liberal (or leftish) but also harbor contemptuous attitudes towards people with more conservative perspectives and consider it to be part of their role to challenge and discredit that crap and pour their more correct understandings into those stupid student skulls. Not all, by any means, but yeah it’s a thing.
The conservative reaction, as described up above, would be to keep your head down, learn how to apply Theory X to Situation A as a tool of analysis or how to set up a statistics study or whatever, and don’t bristle or attempt to negate the liberal-lefty socialist example or bring in your own conservative points as a subtext, including deliberately choosing something like that as your selected subject to analyze or whatever. Get your grade and then go forth, purpose at university accomplished.
The liberal progressive reaction, to which the conservative-minded student is paradoxically but legitimately entitled, is to engage and confront. It may cost you a grade point here and there, and is more likely to expose you to argument, belittling or condescending responses in the classroom, etc. You wanna be an inverse social justice warrior, that’s the price tag you’ve decided to risk paying. Show that you understand how to apply that theory, such as the conflict theory in sociology, to a situation where the oppressor, the one with the power, is a liberal establishment, and the people the oppressor is keeping down through false consciousness and the manipulation of definitions and whatnot, are some conservative people. A fair professor (or grad student) will acknowledge the proficient use of the theory. A less fair instructor will engage with the subtext and ignore or sideline the actual assignment in order to correct your horrible perspective, but may still not keep you from getting due credit. An even less fair instructor will then hold all this against you and grade you unfairly at every opportunity. Don’t lose track of the fact that you (the hypothetical student, I mean) did choose to engage on this level, you’re being an activist. You can choose to appeal to the structures of authority that sit above the instructor and attempt to get a redress of grievances, but don’t expect them to white-knight you. At some point the paradoxical nature of your quest is going to bite you, as you find yourself railing against injustice and oppression that is built into the structure of authority and the vested interest that the institution has in preserving that authority-structure, quite aside from the original conservatism of your views and the liberal ones of your instructor that shape and color the course you were taking. But that’s between you and your own paradigm.