Oracle Online

At Hamline, as hands go up and chairs move into amoeba-like circles for lively debate and the sharing of thought, students clearly have contrasting perceptions, creative hypotheses, observations, and knowledge. But as we sit in discussion at a liberal arts college like Hamline, are the ideas and conceptions a little overwhelmingly, well, liberal?

I would ideally be able to conclude that true freedom of expression reigns on campus and in the classrooms, and the likelihood of that has not been disregarded. What seems a feasible possibility is that widespread ultra-liberalism on campus has moved to shut out open-mindedness. More than a few assumptions about politics, politicians, transnational corporations, powerful Republicans, and other relevant topics dominate conversations. While these assumptions may be popular because of their ultimate truth, any suggestion of conditions being otherwise is sadly missing, depriving students of the understanding of all positions, and consequently, of the farthest comprehension of their own.

There have been many thought-stimulating class discussions and campus presentations. There have also been some days in class that remind me of sitting at home watching old Walker, Texas Ranger shows (minus the nostalgic thrill of Chuck Norris reruns). The same drop kick delivered by a sweaty Texas hero and the same discussion conclusions; Bush is a thoughtless, incompetent leader; the war in Iraq is financially motivated; Wellstone’s policies were infallibly innovative. Though I believe all three, sometimes it’d be an interesting challenge to hear about how our defense funds are reasonable and necessary, or maybe how some of Clinton’s leadership decisions were as tasteless as choices made in his personal life. After the discussions focusing on commonly-held opinions, occasionally considering the possible shrewd strategy of the Bush administration left me with doubts that I had spent too much time in front of a microwave.

Would we acknowledge and welcome a group on campus that was formed to advocate military aggression in the Middle East? To advocate economic, military, or political independence from Israel? I would abhor the idea of either position. But I would like to consider the viability of contrasting viewpoints through simple exposure to the opposing side.

Maybe our Republican and other friends do have the freedom and invitation to voice opinions and perspectives, but that’s applying hope a little, well, liberally.