Truth works in mathematics. In the real world, there is evidence, and proceeding on evidence. "I don't know" is generally the most truthful thing one can say. It's then useful to understand arguments and evidence to evaluate how to proceed, as proceed we must.
But at Berkeley, a leading institution in thought and—one supposes—the pursuit of truth (or at least decision-making largely based on evidence), we enforced tribalism for years. A tribal view on values is perhaps understandable; our mission is to teach all comers and contribute to the welfare of the state. But it extends into the belief on the effectiveness of strategies, and indeed, into quite personal points of view.
The conservative caricature of universities is not exactly right, but in some ways, it is actually even weirder here.
An Example: DEI Statements
There are examples, but I will stick to one, because even I don't care to disrespect my colleagues too much. This is the notion of required Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) statements.
These statements on their face seem okay, particularly in view of ensuring we don't even subtly discriminate against our students and our colleagues. But our duties are in teaching, service, and research, and those values and contributions—on whatever side of the political spectrum—could be argued there.
Instead, we elevated for a decade this particular framing to force applicants into a narrow point of view. In fact, the infamous Berkeley Rubric would seriously downgrade any candidate who suggested that a strategy for overcoming hurdles was to "work hard" in their DEI statements. It's not 100% wrong to say that this statement could be used as a cudgel against those for whom the hurdles are too great, but it is also dangerous to tell people there is no hope. (For further reading, see these perspectives on abandoning or improving DEI statements).
As someone who does participate in discussions on candidates, these statements were taken seriously and required adherence to a certain approach in thinking with little requirements for actually, effectively delivering. It did achieve a purpose in that the faculty of that age were forced to agree to this philosophy, and in doing so, tend to have accepted it internally. Forcing someone to agree in writing to be employed is a (possibly mild) application of force to indoctrinate.
Moreover, these rubrics were generated by the very same army of administrators that consume our budget.
It is damaging to actual dialogue on solutions. And on seeking the truth, or evidence, or counter-evidence, for whatever strategy one might pursue.
I argued consistently and firmly at my university for the last few years that this was wrong. There is a social and employment cost to doing so. See, for example, the reaction to Professor Thompson's objections, where she likened the statements to 1950s anti-communist oaths.