Smith is close-minded, not conservatives
I find Ryan Smith’s recent column, “Conservatives
need to challenge ideas” (Viewpoint, Feb. 3) to be ironic and
hypocritical. He is so bent on saying conservatives are
close-minded that he fails to realize that he is putting his own
assumptions above question.
The “conclusion” that the liberal academics have
come to (i.e. “tree-hugging, diversity-loving, war-opposing
ideas will actually benefit society”) shows their, as well as
Smith’s, own bias. Conservatives oppose these things because
“tree-hugging” environmentalism is often nothing more
than junk science. “Diversity” on campus often means a
neo-apartheid organized by leftist, racial groups. And war is
sometimes necessary to protect our freedom from the tyrants that
Smith and the other leftists adore.
Instead of declaring all those who oppose his ideology are
close-minded, perhaps Smith should open up his own mind first.
Daniel B. Rego Class of 2000, chemistry
Liberals are not smarter
In Ryan Smith’s column entitled “Conservatives need
to challenge ideas,” (Viewpoint, Feb. 3) Smith states that
“you need to challenge the information given to you.”
OK Ryan, here goes. The article implies that universities have more
liberal professors because liberal-minded people are smarter.
Saying that “it is not the university’s fault that the
most learned people in society happen to be liberal” is a
prime example. By saying that liberals “have aligned
themselves with progressive ideals” and that conservatives
“may be more interested in entering the ranks of corporate
America,” Smith implies that liberals belong in the teaching
profession and conservatives do not. How are conservatives less
capable of being teachers and professors? They received the same
“biased education” the liberals did.
Being liberal does not exclude someone from biased education,
and it certainly doesn’t mean you are smarter.
John O’Neill First-year, undeclared
NASA’s budget should increase
Just a few hours after Saturday’s horrible tragedy, I was
shocked to hear people questioning the continuance of our space
program. The race to space and subsequent landing on the moon were
originally thought of as a waste of national resources. They have
since proven invaluable to the development of science, the forging
of international bonds and our national pride. These objectives are
worth every penny we have spent. The recent tragedy is reason to
put more money in ensuring astronaut safety and developing better
technology to ensure the continuation of a safe space program.
Space is truly the final frontier where mankind is unified in a
common goal, the fostering of science. Setting apart national
borders and establishing an international space station with the
Russians and sending men and women of diverse backgrounds into the
unknown ““ the United States has always encouraged innovation.
The space program is one of our national gems and should be treated
as such.
Jonathan Delshad First-year, law
Levy has a lot to learn about God
I agree with Adir Levy that it is worthwhile to think deeply
about god, “Pondering divinity: a good way to spend
time” (Viewpoint, Jan. 29). As someone who thinks about these
issues both on my free time, as Levy preaches we should, and in my
studies as a philosophy major, I thought I’d comment on some
of his claims.
Levy argues that the best place for information on something
would be the source. “For example, when I want to know about
physics, I go to my physics professor. Since everyone wants to know
how to maximize their pleasure in life, they must go to the source
of knowledge about life. If G-d ““ the “˜alleged creator
of life’ exists, He would be the supreme source of such
information.” This argument is absurd. It begs the very
question of whether god exists, and its premise is flawed. If god
existed, she would be the best source for everything. I would
rather learn about physics from god than from a professor any
day.
Thinking about god is valuable. Taking somebody on their word
who claims god will bless you with permanent infinite bliss so long
as you follow their rules (and/or god will condemn you to damnation
if you don’t) is just as intellectually lazy as not thinking about
god at all.
Jordan Blackman Fifth-year, philosophy
Liberal is not the right way to think
Ryan Smith’s “Conservatives need to challenge
ideas,” (Viewpoint, Feb. 3) column essentially argues that
bias in the university is okay, as long as it’s in a way he
agrees with. According to him, we counter the wrong of a
biased education in lower levels with an oppositely biased
education in college. I guess two wrongs do make a right, and
diversity of thought is a small price to pay. After all, left
is the right way to think.
Jonathan Solnit Fourth-year, electrical
engineering