Editor:

As I read the last issue, I realised that Conor Friedersdorf’s opinions article served as practical proof of Bethany Kibler’s piece on popularity at Pomona. I think Friedersdorf’s first two lines demonstrate exactly what Kibler was explaining; to be popular at Pomona means to represent the popular campus view or politics. Thus, for example, by stating that: "A good opinions section should be balanced. This article is intended to present a number of opposing viewpoints to previous articles in TSL," Friedersdorf hides behind some popular morals to offer us homogenous-minded Sagehens some unforeseeable dissent. But instead of rightfully stating that these comments are his own views, as they seem to be from other supporting opinions he has made in TSL and the Collage, he cloaks his comments with a popularity-minded header. Why can’t Friedersdorf just write directly what he believes? Is it so hard to be blunt about alternative politics at Pomona? I would like to respond to these "alternatives," but I am not even sure that Friedersdorf himself believes in all of them.

Sincerely,

Charles W. Cange

Geneva, Switzerland