There appears to be no end to the Left's vitriol against President Trump. After his inauguration, massive and sometimes-violent anti-Trump protests have broken out across the country. The mainstream liberal press hyperventilates over his every statement and action, with reporters spouting opinions as fact and one supposedly objective TV anchor literally rolling his eyes at a Trump surrogate. In the latest bout of hysteria, Democrats and liberals are obsessing gleefully over the (dim) prospect of Trump's impeachment.

While Trump is prone to deliver high drama with his management style and personality, the hatred he inspires comes with a whole lot of derangement and hypocrisy. It can also trace its roots to the political correctness and intellectual intolerance with which American society and higher education are saturated.

Here is what I saw as the deputy director of a pro-Trump super PAC during the 2016 general election. I regularly defended then-candidate Trump in writing and on television on his most controversial comments and positions. These included his proposal to restrict immigration from terror-prone countries, his arguments with a Gold Star family, his alleged sexist and racist remarks, his call for a border wall, his disagreements with the GOP establishment, and much more.

As a result, I received an endless stream of hate mail. One stranger sent the following: "You sure write from by resting in Trump's smelly rear. [sic] I have never read such bogus BS. Its better if you just Ph-ck Off. [sic] A—hole Ugly c—t."

My public discussions about the candidate almost always deteriorated into all-out brawls. Each time, there were people (often women) screaming, shouting and interrupting. The same people usually complained that Trump's candidacy spelled the death of civility in America.

Clearly, many Trump haters found it far more gratifying to rage against him and his supporters than analyze the substance of his positions. For instance, Trump's executive orders restricting travel from terror-prone countries should be no surprise to anyone who was paying attention during the election.

I wrote last June:

Were Trump to cease discussing a Muslim ban but focus on what he began proposing more recently (i.e., temporarily banning immigrants from countries that produce and harbor Islamic terrorists), would the political class talk more honestly about the threats posed by radical Islam in this country?

Of course not. That alone tells us far more about the Trump haters—and the preference for burying their heads in the sand regarding radical Islam—than about Trump himself.

As I predicted, once Trump's executive orders were issued, his opponents from members of Congress to pundits have expressed shock and condemned the orders for what they are not: a Muslim ban.

Of course, the Left likes to beat into submission anyone with a dissenting view. Nowhere is it more effective at doing so than on university campuses. A few months before the election, I attended a discussion at the Washington center of my alma mater, Cornell University. The speaker, a columnist for a major regional newspaper, offered an infomercial for Hillary Clinton to a roomful of alumni and students.

The university-sponsored Campaign 2016 Series in which he participated featured not a single pro-Trump speaker.

Like most other elite universities across the country, Cornell is no stranger to political bias. Right before last year's election, a survey revealed that 11 out of 19 departments at Cornell, including government and philosophy, had zero Republican professors.

This kind of bias has real consequences. One Cornell student who is a Trump supporter wrote to me, "I…keep my thoughts to myself, since everyone else will just dismiss my opinions."

Like Cornell, major universities across the country lack ideological diversity and regularly inculcate political bias against right-leaning ideas. By systematically silencing and marginalizing opposing views, these universities have been at the forefront of waging lunacy against the Trump phenomenon and anything else deemed politically incorrect. They make a habit of labeling non-Leftist views as racist, sexist, misogynistic, xenophobic—in addition to fascist and inherently evil.

Indeed, institutions of higher learning are some of the biggest purveyors of intellectual intolerance. Young people reared in such an environment seek "safe spaces" from opposing opinions, denounce Trump (sometimes violently), and hate those who hold pro-Trump views.

It is no surprise that universities have been gripped with the most reprehensible bouts of anti-Trump violence since the election. At the University of California, Berkeley, hooligans violently blocked a speech by Trump supporter and provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, while potential violence and a cowardly university administration forced the cancellation of a speech by another Trump supporter, Ann Coulter.

So when a commentator is foaming at the mouth condemning the Trump administration on CNN, just remember that he would do well to reflect more on his intellectual and political bias. Remember also that all those sophisticated anti-Trump voters with college or advanced degrees likely first learned to hate those with whom they disagree on the very university campuses that have failed to teach critical thinking and intellectual tolerance.

As the political fights in Washington rage on, anyone who cares about having an honest political dialogue should remember that sustainable reform in the nation's politics is unlikely to come before true reform at universities and society as a whole.

Ying Ma (@GZtoGhetto ) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. She is the former deputy director of the Committee for American Sovereignty, a pro-Trump super PAC, and the former deputy policy director of the Ben Carson presidential campaign. She is the author of "Chinese Girl in the Ghetto."

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.