Penn is one of the top universities in the nation, a status supposedly not resulting solely from academics but from a proclivity towards embracing all creeds and cultures. Non-discrimination, tolerance, and equal opportunity are the University's mottos. These principles sound great in theory, but in fact they are only applied selectively to areas such as race and gender. As far as political views go, the evidence of skewed campus "debates", the make-up of the faculty, and the often one sidedness of the DP speaks loud and clear to Penn's obvious slant.
Whether it is for breakfast in the classroom, lunch on College Green, or for dinner in the dorm, Penn students are bombarded with a steady diet of liberal philosophies. Views right of center face being belittled in the lecture hall by professors who are supposed to foster a welcoming and unbiased environment. A couple of months ago, I had a conversation with a friend who was ridiculed while discussing women in the workplace because she expressed her desire to eventually stay at home and raise her children. The professor asked why as a business student she would have such low ambitions. This situation is indicative of the type of prejudiced mindset that regards conservative ideals as an antiquated way to approach life.
Conservatives on this campus are almost always labeled as ignorant or reactionary. The fact of the matter is that many left wingers here at Penn act in blatant contradiction to what they assert they stand for, that is, an accepting and all encompassing "open minded" worldview. Examining this phrase closer reveals an approval of everything except what my "open minded" friends state is wrong - ideas including being pro-life, pro traditional family, or embracing faith values. In other words, liberals prove to be just as objective as their respective counterparts. That makes sense since opinions inherently are biased. "Open mindedness" is only a feeble attempt to morally "one- up" conservatives.
My concern is not that liberals are allowed to voice their opinions on the campus. I am in full support of free speech. The issue is that there remain far fewer forums or spokespersons for conservatives. When conservatives do make statements or write on controversial topics, they are often seen as hate mongers or are dismissed as right wing nuts. Those on the Left, however, have been granted unmitigated access to vehemently attack other ideologies to their hearts content.
Take for example Matt Mcnulty, who wrote a column two weeks ago in the first issue of the SP that essentially equated being a "fundamental" Christian with idiocy. He wrote: "I had never dreamed that they [fundamental Christians] could have won converts at a bastion of the intellect like Penn." I can only imagine what would happen if some other group of people or organization were pegged with this remark.
Such partiality is also apparent when Michael Moore is asked to speak and then praised for his enlightening comments. Campus outrage and protests would result if someone who was as far to the right as Moore is to the Left had come to do the same. No person like that would ever be invited.
Therefore, the problem goes much deeper then just having more opportunities to express political convictions. It boils down to a double standard that allows one and only one perspective to be articulated: that of political correctness. Such PC rhetoric declares hunting season on any who oppose leftist views, ensuring that the main targets continue to be big business, those defined as hawks, or the religious right.
Forever off limits are in-depth critiques of same-sex unions, affirmative action, or organizations including NAMBLA or PETA. Be careful if any of those hotly contestable items are touched with a ten foot pole, lest they win you a trip to a well-known resort called Camp Intolerance, a place where conservatives get their names publicly smeared and dragged through the mud for their nonconformist stances.
The moral of this story is not to exchange one political system or bias for another. In fact, I myself have benefited from a year at Penn, engaging in challenging debates and being compelled to further understand my beliefs and investigate those in opposition to them.
My goal has not been to merely address these grievances but rather to bring to light what I see as a major detriment to the larger Penn body, which rarely sees the other side of the coin. Until such observations are taken as legitimate, an alleged commitment to a diverse atmosphere will continue to be just that: alleged. A true agora for a variety of ideas will be swept under the carpet to guarantee that the more "progressive" opinions of the day are maintained as the de-facto standards in and out of the classroom.
