The Left Should Listen to Reason

Editor:
While the editorial “Organic Intellectuals are Hard to Find” sought to address two valid criticisms that the Opinions page consists solely of liberal arguments and that the arguments are too emotional and poorly developed, I find it ironic that the editorial itself was liberal, emotional, and poorly developed; in the following, I shall address, one-by-one, editorial’s responses to each criticism.

TSL defense #1: “[W]e invite all opinions in our newspaper and we wholeheartedly encourage those with conservative viewpoints to submit articles for publication.”

Invitations and encouragement are commendable means—if they are effective—but clearly, the lack of conservative voice proves them ineffective. If TSL’s Opinions writers and editors espouse liberalism and are being paid to do it, it is hardly surprising that the Opinions page is predominately liberal. TSL can invite all the Opinions articles it wants, but if it does not pay for them, articles with alternative points of view are, of course, rare.

In addition, it may be useful to look at the hiring practices of TSL itself—is ideological diversity a priority? Apparently not.

TSL defense #2: “We do not believe this newspaper need be ideologically ‘balanced’ . . . since it requires a subjective judgment . . . as to what exactly constitutes the ‘center’.”

Bear in mind, dear editor, that TSL is supported by every single ASPC-fee-paying student at Pomona College. And to most of these students, there is indeed a left, a right, and a center. I commend TSL for having the gall to profess its ignorance of the political spectrum—especially after stating that TSL does indeed “lean fairly toward the radical end.” TSL has an ethical responsibility to be objective because not only do liberal students pay for TSL—conservative, anarchistic, libertarian, moderate, and apolitical students do too. For TSL to remain tied to a single ideology because it does not know any better is asinine.

TSL defense #3: The “man of the people” should not change his “own opinions, convictions, criteria of discrimination, [or] standards of conduct” just because he is defeated by someone who “can put forth arguments better than he and really tear him to pieces logically,” lest he “find himself having to change every day or every time” he is intellectually bested.

First, Antonio Gramsci is no “popular Italian critical theorist” but rather, an obscure Italian Marxist. This further proves (as if one needed more proof) TSL’s leaning “toward the radical end” of the political spectrum.

Second, I would like to congratulate TSL for espousing a doctrine that denies the usefulness of reason, the goal of persuasive argument, and the dignity of human intelligence—in short, a doctrine that laughs at the very idea of education. Therefore, I recommend that the editorial staff drop out of Pomona College in order to make room for people unafraid to confront thoughtfully and open-mindedly ideas that conflict with their own.

TSL knows what is wrong but it seems almost determined to remain as it is. It seems that TSL rather enjoys displaying—time and time again—the overstuffed contents of its intellectual toilet.

Or perhaps intellectuals at TSL are hard to find, period.

Sincerely,

Dorothy Lam ’05