Political discourse at U. in disarray
The state of political discourse at this University is truly one of disarray and ignorance. As is the norm, the most "prospectively dangerous consequences" to the vast leftist majority on this campus is that truth and scientific fact are in conflict with their cherished beliefs and philosophies. A perfect example of this is the "Zeitgeist" piece from yesterday's columnist. Here the author seeks to discredit the Pope's claims about the distribution of condoms attributing to the AIDS problem, yet he handles it in a rather curious fashion. The validity of the Pope's claims that condom usage promotes a risky activity and therefore increases AIDS risk according to the best evidence we have available, claims supported by the likes of Senior Harvard research scientist Dr. Edward Green, are not debated. In place of making any kind of substantive rebuttal of these claims, the author simply cites a few quotes and dismisses the Pope because he is a religious figure. After all, as pop culture says, all religion is inherently flawed and dangerously wrong. The author then attempts to discredit abstinence-only education as a whole because it "blurs religion with science" and because, according to a political report written for a politician, these programs often contain inaccuracies. I myself am not a proponent of abstinence-only education, but in arguing about it I would be sure to include the problems that have arose in this country since we strayed from it, such as skyrocketing rates of single parenthood, of marriages out of wedlock and of an increase in the number of abortions performed yearly. Just as with the Pope's condom remarks, the author does not discuss them but merely passes them off as the leftist gospel they have become; nothing here is deliberated in any meaningful way, shape or form.
The author then tries to justify his almost unscrupulous yet leftist-accepted bashing of Christianity by attacking the left's next favorite target, conservatism, in an knee-jerk reactionary type of way to prove he is unbiased that is eerily reminiscent of a zombie. As Eddie Vedder once wrote, "It's herd behavior." The author attempts to bash free market economics by simply attributing the current economic crisis solely to the relaxation of economic regulation without any fact or logic, just stating that we have been lax in economic regulation since the 1980s and that we are in a recession today. The sub-prime mortgage crisis, which appears to have triggered this economic downturn, is not touched upon in any way. Nor are rather ambiguous pieces of government regulation enforced during this time period, such as the Community Reinvestment Act that legally forced banks to make bad loans. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two quasi-government entities that are products of government regulation, which made an endless amount of bad loans because they knew the government would bail them out, are also absent from this argument. Is more government regulation like the rule FAS 157 mentioned? Not a chance! The author merely ties the blame for economy particularly to former President George W. Bush, because apparently the man who supported the bailout and spent money at astronomical levels is considered to be fiscally conservative to the uninformed. I'm sure someone could argue against any of these points; the author's rhetoric is so widely accepted at this campus he did not feel the need to.
This ignorance is not just limited to the author of this work, but can be seen in many of the op-eds in this paper as well. Several weeks ago, a piece was written about the how GOP and the principals they espouse were out of touch with the average American. Rather than discuss how the GOP's core policies, such as personal liberty and that the belief in a limited, accountable government are not in line with the beliefs of Americans, the author simply bashed Gov. Sarah Palin for banning books and associating with the Alaskan Independence party. These accusations are so blatantly false that not even the mainstream media would report on them. Rather than do any research on either topic, the author just assumed the leftist mass was right as always and essentially claimed that the 46 percent of voters who voted for Palin's ticket in November were ignorant and undesirable characters that openly advocated for practices like the banning of books.
This ignorance sadly seems to be the norm. Although this university prides itself to no end on its acceptance of what we loosely term "diversity," anyone who disagrees with the majority is quickly ostracized and made an outcast. Conservative beliefs are dismissed without any real consideration. I remember months ago reading about the large sum of money the University was using to recruit female math teachers for the sake of "diversity," yet the University can take no such action to hire any conservatives to teach in the political science department. For an alleged institution of "higher learning," I think we ought to shed the promotion of censorship when it comes to views that differ than our own and openly discuss them in the public forum.
Kevin Nedza is a Rutgers College senior majoring in history and political science. He is also the vice president of the Rutgers College Republicans.