Probably because the real conservative ones don’t invite liberal speakers in the first place.
Those last 4 words are superfluous. And you misspelled “two”. 
Are we talking about “conservatives” or “reactionaries”? To my mind, a conservative is one who accepts the necessity for change but insists on caution and prudence. There is a good case to be made for this position, so long as progress can go forward in such a way as to ensure that sudden and extreme change is not necessary.
Don’t know of any. With them, I could negotiate, cut a deal, move forward perhaps more slowly, but still forward. That could work. But what I see arrayed before me is stubborn and futile reaction, which will not halt change but only make it more painful and expensive.
And this:
What “conservative boards” are you speaking of? Name a few? And why would one go there, when one is already at the one with the smartest and hippest people on the planet (with the possible exception of one devoted to absurdly long-necked ungulates…)
TL:DR What “conservatives”? Where? Who? Huh?
Well done. 
That’s a valid point. But then just remove the comparison aspect. Liberals, in a liberal institution, are best situated to demonstrate liberal thinking. Yet, they routinely throw hissy fits when liberal speakers are invited. And the speakers have to have additional security.
It’s not like conservatism is this wonderfully new and improved viewpoint and if only it were permitted equal time then people will see how much better it is.
No, conservatism is the same bad old way of thinking that was crammed down everyone’s throats since before there was such a thing as liberalism.
Conservatism was on the wrong side of the American Revolution, the wrong side of Slavery abolition, the wrong side of women’s suffrage and the wrong side of the civil rights movement. Conservatism is wrong about evolution, wrong about gays and wrong about human threats to the environment.
Lotta wrongness there.
If you want your views to be given pride of place in an educational setting or in front of a large audience, you have to live up to certain standards. It’s not enough to just demand equal time and to play the victim if you don’t get it.
Conservatives always act like today is day 1 of the debate. Like none of the ridiculous bullshit they spewed yesterday should count against them. They know that they’re in a popularity contest rather than a scientific inquiry, so through the skillful–albeit shameless–use if Big Lie tactics, they can win by maintaining a plurality in their base while keeping their opponents divided, demoralized, and on the defensive.
There is some room for respect for caution. “Let’s not make any big changes before we know what the consequences will be.” There really were some pretty good arguments against U.S. Independence in the American Revolution, and the mistreatment of Loyalists, after, was shameful. Yes, you’re right: they were wrong. But at least they weren’t as hellishly wrong as those who supported slavery and opposed racial equality, women’s equality, and gay equality.
As elucidator notes, there is a good case to be made for a position emphasizing caution and prudence. It just has to be a moderate stance, because if one insists on absolute caution and demands perfect safety, then no progress can ever be made.
This is one of the advantages of American federalism. We can try things out in certain of the states, to see the consequences. We have fifty different sociological laboratories! This is one of the biggest advantages, right now, to the gay marriage issue. It’s being tried, and isn’t having any negative effects on society. The proper, moderate conservative must say, “Yes, it’s being tried, and isn’t doing any harm. I must withdraw my opposition.”
Same for marijuana use: Colorado is showing us that the idea is really pretty darn harmless. If it had fallen out that traffic accidents increased by a hundred and twenty per cent, from stoned drivers, then the conservative viewpoint could have been bolstered. Not? Not.
What’s your definition of “conservatism” aside from “ideas I don’t like”?
I can’t see, for example, how any of the three sides in the American Revolution (pro, con, indiferent) could be classified as (moder day US usage) liberal or conservative in any meaningful way.
Do you think Noam Chomsky or Richard Dawkins is ever going to be invited to speak at Liberty University?
FreeRepublic does.
Only ever heard of that happening when Anita Sarkeesian was invited to speak at Utah State (it was canceled). (Did you mean to say “conservative speakers”? I’ve heard of them being protested but not of them requiring additional security.)
The conservative view was to maintain the established order, and to legitimize the government as it stood, cleaving to the King, in large part due to religious beliefs about the Divine Right of the monarchy to rule. The liberal (perhaps radical) idea was to throw over the old order, reject British authority entirely, and take up a new government, one that was self-determined and not based on a religious outlook.
Remember that this same dichotomy, in the French Revolution, is where the terms “left” and “right” came from in the first place. The right supported the king, and the left didn’t, so much, based on where the factions sat in the meeting hall.
The relationship to modern terms is still pretty close.
“Divine Right of Kings” in the American Revolution?
If you simply define “conservative” as “opposed to change” it means so little in actual political stances that you get to claim victory for every change that happens.
Conservatism can be defined as support for traditional values and established institutions. Religion in particular. And at the time of the American Revolution most Christians believed in the Divine Right of Kings.
Or said they did, because, you know, the king might not like to hear otherwise . . .
The course of the French Revolution showed the idea might not be as widely accepted as it had appeared to be.
Some have argued that the American Revolution was the “most conservative revolution in history” because, despite splitting off from the mother country, the system set up in the aftermath was based almost entirely on the political tradition of the mother country.
Also, the American government was set up to only allow for gradual, consensus-driven change. The American Constitutional system is quite conservative in this regard.
Do you have a cite to back this up? I’m not aware of any American colonist at the time who believed in the Divine Right of Kings. Not to say that no such existed, but I’d certainly need to see a good citation for what you’ve said here.
The colonists were overwhelmingly Christian. If they all believed in the Divine Right of Kings, then why would there have been a revolution at all? History tells us that what riled up the colonists was actions taken by Parliament, starting with the Stamp Act and followed by the Declaratory Act and other actions which the colonists viewed as infringing on their rights. It was, after all, a tax on tea that started the kerfuffle in Boston which eventually lead to the outbreak of the American Revolution. Today, I think we could agree, it’s generally conservatives who fight for lower taxes.
Indeed, lets check the school notes:
http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/declaration/section1.rhtml
IMHO there was so much enlightenment there that what it promised was not much realized until the civil rights era. IMHO what it has happen is that what the founding fathers did was so radical then that the full implications of that was unlikely to be applicable then (like ending slavery); in practice what happened then was to limit the number of the ones that actually had those rights.
The history of conservatives in America has been mostly a tale of the ones that want to continue to preserve the limitations of those rights.
Well, yes. The idea was still prevalent.
I didn’t define it that way. I gave an example of a conservative viewpoint from a specific historic era that depended on loyalty to the existing governing structure, almost exactly the way today’s conservatives in the U.S. emphasize the primacy of states’ rights.
Conservatives also tend to oppose democratization of political power.
(There is still substantial opposition to the 17th Amendment among U.S. conservatives.)
One of my old history professors said that the U.S. Constitution was the most counter-revolutionary document in history. Hyperbole, of course, but it was remarkably counter-revolutionary. (The suppression of the Whisky Rebellion is just one example.)
I’m going to open a big bottle of “Cite?” and wait for you to pour even a shot.
I’ll state it directly: The concept of “Divine right of kings” played no discernable importance in the American Revoluitions or, foe that matter, the Independence of the Spanish colonies in the Americas.
If, as some are saying, “conservative” means simply “opposed to change, preservation of institutions” then I present a list of thoroughly conservative, for 2015, ideas:
Names of the day of the week and months
The alphabet
Democracy
Opposing invaders
Not legalizing slavery
Driving on the same side of the road as everyone else.
Individual property
Freedom of speech