The short answer is “yes”. There are a few.

Phoebe Maltz Bovy has written the book, THE PERILS OF “PRIVILEGE”
Why Injustice Can’t Be Solved by Accusing Others of AdvantageMark Lilla has written a book, The Once and Future Liberal, in which he takes issue with identity politics from a liberal perspective.

However, by and large, even liberals who do not like identity politics are cowards and do not stand up against it. They are enablers. They will stand by and watch a non-liberal being slandered as “racist” or “sexist” for opposing identity politics and disagreeing with radical leftist dogma, even when there is no reasonable evidence of racism or sexism. And they will do nothing to publicly oppose the SJW army’s unrelenting attack on traditional Western values and culture–values such as freedom of speech, which once was held as sacred across the political spectrum.

For example, James Damore was fired for writing a memo that discussed scientifically proven biological differences between men and women (in terms of distributions of traits), and recommended that people be treated as individuals rather than as members of groups. Whether you agree or disagree with his conclusions, there is nothing in this memo that is evidence of hate toward women. Yet he was accused of being a “misogynist”. The memo was given the spin of “furthering gender stereotypes”, although the memo itself was very nuanced and explicitly stated “I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes.”

So where were the liberals protesting this slander on Damore’s character?

According to a Harvard Harris poll, 57% of liberals thought Google was right to fire him, but 43% thought Google was wrong. That’s a significant minority of liberals; why were they not more vocal? Loads of conservatives have spoken out against Google firing Damore. Yet it’s not so easy to find liberals doing so. I conclude that most people who call themselves “liberal” are either part of the radical left themselves or they are cowards who enable the radical left by their silence.

I suppose we could say their cowardice has some basis. Those few brave liberals who depart from the SJW narrative, even mildly, are often vilified by SJWs. It is not uncommon for liberals who speak out against SJW dogma to lose their jobs or to bow to pressure to resign from their positions, particularly in fields dominated by leftists.

For example, a Yale lecturer, Erika Christakis, was so vilified after taking exception to political correctness applied to Halloween costumes that she resigned her position.

And Bret Weinstein, a professor at Evergreen State College, stood up to the SJW bullies who had demanded that all white people stay off campus for a day. He and his wife received so much hostility from college activists that they both resigned. (Although the college did settle a lawsuit Weinstein and his wife initiated for failure to protect their rights, the college continues to maintain that the “educational activities” involving white people being banned from campus was nondiscriminatory.)

So, if you are liberal and you really don’t like identity politics and want to do something about it, I suggest that your best bet is to make common cause with conservatives.

Now, do you notice an internal response of “Yikes! But conservatives are evil monsters and they’re all a bunch of bigots!” If so, please consider the possibility that you may have very limited understanding of any other political point of view than your own. Jonathan Haidt, Jesse Graham, and Brian Nosek conducted a study to determine how well people understood those with different political points of view and found that liberals were the worst at it.

Isn’t THAT interesting. I would recommend, if you are into self-reflection, taking some time to ponder how this is possible, considering that liberals generally seem to pride themselves on open-mindedness and empathy; that liberals routinely claim higher intelligence and superior education; and that liberals control the social science research establishment and academia, thus having vast resources available to them for exploring an understanding of how people think. How then is it possible that conservatives, who do not have access to these vast social science resources, understand liberals better than liberals understand conservatives?

And if you are liberal and want to understand how conservatives actually think, it would be a mistake to pay attention to other liberals on the subject, especially those who are in the business of vilifying conservatives.

(Certainly, you can find some people on the fringes who call themselves “conservative” who are pretty weird. However, most conservatives are people who care about equality of rights and opportunity for all citizens (though not equality of outcome). Most conservatives agree with Martin Luther King’s desire for everyone to be treated based on the content of their character.)

As an aside, Jonathan Haidt has a very interesting background himself. He started out as a liberal. Then one day he picked up a book called Conservatism and was soon sitting on the floor of the bookstore, reading “all these gems of insight on the relationship between human flourishing and society.” At present, or at least the last I heard, Haidt considers himself to be a centrist.