It is certain that ad hominem attacks do not prove anything. However in this case we are considering whether an individual should be the head of an organization. In these cases we should consider an individuals character and beliefs and how they align with our own, since they will be representing us as members of that organization.

I would add that in many cases the political and personal beliefs of an individual are relevant to their professional standing, even when it is not a question of representation or leadership. It is naive to think otherwise. For example, a biologist should understand that humans have two biological genders. If a biologist starts suggesting that it is a good idea to put a child on hormone blockers, causing permanent damage to their brain and body, because there are more than two genders, then we must assume he is not a good biologist. That is reasonable. "False in one thing, false in all things" is a fallacy, just like an ad hominem attack; yet if we follow a persons reasoning and discern if they are being influenced by politics and social pressures, it is not fallacious, it is the truth of the matter. You can be a good programmer and think the world is flat, sure, but I'm going to implicitly trust your code less.

. It is interesting that you say that you haven't "Felt" that a narrative was being pushed during your academic travels and travails. I wonder, if instead, you were to think critically about this, instead of feeling about it. Perhaps then you would realize that everyone has an agenda, conscious or not. Every person you speak with has certain presuppositions and ideas that inform their frame of reference for reality and how they interpret data. Teachers and academics are not immune to bias. Just like anyone else, they can be influenced by social pressure, financial pressure, or just the bad data they've accumulated over a lifetime. The Conduct of the Understanding by John Locke is a good place to start if you wish to get a handle on the kind of poor thinking that can lead even intelligent and well read people astray. .. "Modern day social conservatives" are afraid of the "other", huh? No, I think the real problem is the lack of diversity in thought among modern academics. Consider a culture which horribly mistreats women, versus a culture which treats women with dignity and gives them equal rights. What if we make the statement: One culture is better than the other. This kind of concrete value judgement of another culture requires a certain kind of thinking. People who think this way, we might call them people who think reasonably, often don't "Value diversity" as much as people who aren't able to make concrete value judgements. Unfortunately we have created a culture of fanatical tolerance which refuses to pass judgement on any evil, so many people are unable to rightly divide the truth.