Coming to a liberal arts institution, I was not expecting the students to be staunch conservatives. However, I also wasn't expecting not to find one conservative among my circle of acquaintances. It's incredible how the majority of the students at Pomona seem to be of the same mind. The election and speakers we have had this year have helped point this out to me, and made me think that a lot of the "liberal" students here are really just more extreme in their beliefs and impulsive in joining the fight for a cause, rather than actually being liberal.

The definition of a liberal person is one who is open-minded and not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways. I think that students here have lost the open-minded part of the definition. They tend to gravitate towards the most untraditional causes and the most liberal beliefs. While this is a good start, this is usually where people stop. They form these opinions and attach themselves to liberal causes, only to then convince themselves that those are the only correct beliefs and everything else is wrong. The open-mindedness fades, and they become close-minded towards everything other than their own liberal beliefs.

For example, when I mentioned to my friends that I was not sure who I was going to vote for, they automatically assumed that I was deciding between Gore and Nader. When I corrected them and told them that I was actually choosing between Gore and Bush, my statement was met with a string of negative comments about Bush. Jordan Stewart '04, a friend from my sponsor group and a passionate Democrat and Gore supporter, told me she would not speak to me if I was stupid enough to vote for Bush. She began to specifically discuss the stances Gore and Bush took on different issues, and how Gore's beliefs were always superior. When I would offer arguments that portrayed Bush as the better candidate on a certain issue, she would dismiss them. She had already made up her mind and could not allow for the possibility that something she did not already believe in could be right. Though it is good to be passionate about something, she is hurting herself by closing herself off to ideas that differ from her own beliefs.

This can also be seen in the support of the movement to stop Keck Graduate Institute from building a bio-technology research center on the Bernard Field Station. Just from hearing this issue being discussed, it seems as though those in opposition to the research facility are not allowing for the fact that there are positives that would come from its creation as well. It also seems as if many of those in opposition to the research facility have jumped on the bandwagon and do not really know that much about the issue. This makes me question whether people at Pomona are really dedicated to the ideas they are defending or are just taking on actions and beliefs simply for the sake of being liberal.

This idea was further demonstrated to me at Ralph Nader's speech. Petitions were being passed around and signed regarding the Kyoto Treaty. How many of us signed that without really knowing much about the issue or what action was being called for? I did. What they were asking for (and I can't even tell you what it was now) sounded beneficial at the time, so I signed it, as I saw most everyone else around me doing. Like many people I'm sure, I didn't stop to think about the ramifications of the petition, and the negative implications it carried. It wasn't right for me to support something that I wasn't informed about.

I think this is really the issue. It's not right to form opinions if you are not informed about the issues. And it's difficult to be informed if you are closing yourself off to more conservative or disinterested beliefs. We, as Pomona students, are quick to grab on to the most controversial issue and take the more unorthodox stance. But having liberal beliefs is only part of being liberal - it defeats the purpose if you cannot be open to the entire spectrum of opinions.