ANN ARBOR, Mich. – A University of Michigan professor recently penned a column for In These Times about why she believes it’s a great thing to hate Republicans.

It’s a screed that leaves little doubt about the messages she conveys to her communications students in class, and raises serious questions about her ability to remain impartial when considering the perspectives of her more conservative students.

Professor Susan J. Douglas, who formally worked for Republican Fred Lippitt, a Rhode Island senate minority leader in the 1970s, explained to readers how she has come to loath modern-day conservatives, and why she believes they are ruining the country.

MORE NEWS: Know These Before Moving From Cyprus To The UK

“A brief review of Republican rhetoric and strategies since the 1980s show an escalation of determined vilification (which has been amplified relentlessly on Fox News since 1996.) From Spiro Agnew’s attack on intellectuals as an ‘effete corps of impudent snobs’; to Rush Limbaugh’s hate speech; to the GOP’s endless campaign to smear the Clintons over Whitewater, then bludgeon Bill over Monica Lewinsky; to the ceaseless denigration of President Obama (‘socialist,’ ‘Muslim’), the Republicans have crafted a political identity that rests on a complete repudiation of the idea that the opposing party and its followers have any legitimacy at all,” Douglas wrote.

She said the “rhetoric and strategies” of conservative thinkers stems from their tendencies to be dogmatic, rigid, intolerant and indifferent of others.

“Why does this work?” she questioned.

“A series of studies have found political conservatives tend toward certain psychological characteristics. What are they? Dogmatism, rigidity and intolerance of ambiguity; a need to avoid uncertainty; support for authoritarianism; a heighted sense of threat from others; and a personal need for structure. How do these qualities influence political thinking?

“According to researchers, the two core dimensions of conservative thought are resistance to change and support for inequality. These, in turn, are core elements of social intolerance. The need for certainty, the need to manage fear of social change, lead to black-and-white thinking and an embrace of stereotypes.

“Which would certainly lead to a desire to deride those not like you – whether people of color, LGBT people or Democrats. And, especially since the early 1990s, Republican politicians and pundits have been feeding these needs with a single-minded, uncomplicated, good-vs.-evil worldview that vilifies Democrats,” Douglas wrote.

All of which points to the conclusion that Douglas and her fellow Democrats and others on the rabidly liberal left can “hate them back,” she wrote.

MORE NEWS: How to prepare for face-to-face classes

She contends that she once considered marrying a man like Fred Lippitt, who she describes as “fiscally conservative but progressive about women’s rights, racial justice and environmental preservation.”

“Today, marrying a Republican in unimaginable to me,” she wrote. “And I’m not alone.”

The country is growing more partisan, she explained, and it’s creeping into decisions that should have nothing to do with politics.

She cited a study that showed how political hatred plays into things like college admissions, for example.

Researchers Shanto Iyengar of Stanford and Sean Westwood of Princeton “asked participants in their study to review the resumés of graduating high school seniors to decide which ones should receive scholarships. Some resumés had cues about party affiliation (say, member of the Young Republicans Club) and some about racial identity (also through extracurricular activities, or via a stereotypical name).

“Race mattered, but not nearly as much as partisanship. An overwhelming 80 percent of partisans chose the student of their own party. And this held true even if the candidate from the opposite party had better credentials,” Douglas wrote.

What’s perhaps most unfortunate is that instead of attempting to counter the country’s growing political divide, Douglas is simply another left-wing academic working to corral students to her side of the aisle.

She wants readers to hate Republicans as much as she does, because Republicans don’t believe in the things she thinks are important. Essentially, Douglas’ column is simply the latest far-left attempt to undermine conservative thought as illegitimate.

Which is exactly the type of behavior she uses to justify her burning hate for her ideological enemies.

Douglas’ comments enraged conservatives, of course, prompting some to call for her resignation from the taxpayer-funded University of Michigan.

“As a Republican and a Member of the Board of Regents, I find Professor Douglass’s column extremely troubling and offensive,” U of M Board of Regents member Andrea Fischer Newman wrote on her Facebook page. “The University of Michigan community rightly supports and defends a wide variety of viewpoints and a diversity of opinion on all subjects. But this particular column, which expresses and condones hatred toward an entire segment of individuals in our society based solely on their political views, fails to observe an equally important value of our University — respect for the right of others to hold views contrary to our own. Professor Douglass’s column ill-serves the most basic values of a University community.”

Bobby Schostak, chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, also chimed in, and is leaning on U of M President Mark Schlissel to take action, the Detroit News reports.

“The piece by Professor Susan J. Douglas is ugly and full of hatred, and it should not be tolerated by the University of Michigan. … It’s inexcusable for any instructor to isolate students because of their political ideology, especially if they do not fall in line with his or her own. Not only does she further perpetuate the political discord in our nation today, but she’s completely out-of-touch and focusing on a life of politics she apparently left decades ago. …”

Schostack wants Michigan Democrats to step up and condemn Douglas’ comments.

“The University of Michigan is a respected public institution, funded by taxpayers, and this type of bullying must be addressed by President Mark Schlissel. I am calling on Lon Johnson, Gary Peters, Gretchen Whitmer, Tim Greimel and all Democratic officials to join in condemning this disgraceful dialogue by calling for Professor Susan J. Douglas’ resignation. By endorsing the hatred of an opposing political party, Douglas has made Republican students feel vulnerable and intimidated,” he said. “Our children come first, not the opinions of outspoken, out-of-line professors.”

A university spokesperson told the Detroit News that Douglas’ column doesn’t represent the school’s views.

“Faculty freedom of expression, including in the public sphere, is one of the core values of our institution,” spokesman Rick Fitzgerald said, but “At the same time, the university must and will work vigilantly to ensure students can express diverse ideas and perspectives in a respectful environment and without fear of reprisal.”

The freedom to express differing political viewpoints is exactly what concerns campus conservatives.

“This is blatant intolerance, and the University should take action on the behalf of intellectual diversity and all of the students who are intimidated into silence,” Grant Strobl, chairman of the U of M chapter of Young Americans for Freedom, told the Detroit News. “In the position of an instructor, she can intimidate and inhibit the student’s freedom of expression.”