The Shocking Reality of Liberalism

I came to college with eyes wide open, an eager, closet liberal at last free to burst from my ideological chrysalis and to begin my intellectual growth at Harvard, capital of the liberal world. I believed that the color-blind society was achievable. I believed that we could save Mother Earth from heartless loggers. I even believed that we could be entirely accepting of all opinions.

Two full semesters have come and gone, and at the end of my first year here, I am no longer the naive ideologue I once was. The color-blind society is still far, far away--note the riot at South Boston High School earlier this month. Mother Earth has been sentenced to death by overzealotry from the left and overreaction from the right. And, regrettably, some sort of bias is unavoidable.

I was used to being part of a liberal minority in high school; it was easy to cry foul and charge conservative bias. At Harvard, where liberals abound, the bias slants distinctly the other way. Begrudgingly, I concede this truth to Peninsula. In the De Scopulo section of their latest issue ("Just Joshing"), they report that Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57 chose to overlook first-year Joshua Oppenheimer's removal of AALARM posters from a University bulletin board.

This contradicts a precedent set in 1985 after then-first-year Samuel Burke was placed on disciplinary probation after having "removed a 'Reserved-HRGLSA'... sign from a table in the crowded Union," according to Peninsula.

This is blatant hypocrisy from the same administration which officially frowns upon discrimination due to political beliefs (Please note the Handbook for Students, 1992-93, p. 91).

I am an ardent supporter of gay rights; I agree whole-heartedly with activists' goals and, for the most part, their methods. But what was Josh thinking? The symbolic shredding of a piece of blue paper by an obnoxious self-styled vigilante is not likely to make any sort of statement and, in this case, was a violation of AALARM's right to free speech.

The University should probably have given a little more consideration to the case against Oppenheimer. In fact, if Oppenheimer has been threatening and insulting to members of AALARM, as Peninsula claims, then harassment proceedings are in order (Again, Handbook, p. 91-99.)

I'm sure, if you asked, the Lord High Poobahs of Peninsula would be deliriously happy to point out similar instances of University bias.

Any campus conservative will happily extemporize on the evils of the mandatory Contact peer outreaches, where sexual orientation is discussed with first-years. "Is a group's right to free speech and the protection of the University dependent on its status as a 'politically correct' organization?" they query.

Let's face it. Harvard has some sort of agenda. But there is nothing really wrong with that. It's unrealistic to pretend that the administration has no political beliefs. It is likewise unrealistic to believe that its opinions will never leak through to its policy. The debate on homosexuality is primarily one of morality. While most conservatives would like to believe that they have a monopoly on this precious commodity, the Administration believes that tolerance is a moral virtue. And it is the prerogative and the right of this private institution to teach whatever moral lesson it wants.

So although the University has some explaining to do about Oppenheimer, it should not feel obliged by pressure from the right to renounce or justify its stance of homosexuality.

I agree with Peninsula (again?): "Dean Jewett has made clear where his own affections lie."

Good for him.