A Stick in the Mud

Fall at Harvard never fails to instill a sense of excitement and high expectations for an even better year within every student. Unfortunately, either the Crimson's editorial board is less motivated than the rest of us or else it is just plain unwilling to do a better job than it has in the past.

If it's opening issue editorials are any indication, the Crimson seems deadset on rigidly adhering to the same old views it always has, steadfastly refusing to consider perspectives which depart from the traditionally liberal stances it has always embraced. The three editorials in the Crimson's registration issue all advocated liberal solutions to race relations, gay rights and affirmative action--all of which are historically liberal fixations as well. It is ironic that in an era in which the country appears to be looking to conservative solutions, not one of the positons taken by Harvard's central newspaper reflected a conservative opinion. Regardless though of whether the Crimson is liberal and the country is conservative, or vice versa, Crimson editorial readers deserve more imaginative discussion of issues by sources from all across the political spectrum.

The editorial on Gay Rights, for example, exposes the usual liberal pattern of favoritism for certain minority groups. Whether or not this is desirable remains beside the point here. The fact that this policy is veiled by the Crimson's cry of unfair treatment is particularly disturbing.

While the editorial supposedly calls for equal treatment for Gays, in reality it implores us to extend not equal but special treatment to this group. The Crimson is unhappy with the way the Gay Students Association (GSA) was treated by the Faculty Council even though the so-called "quashing" of the GSA's request for leaflets in registration packets applied equally to every student group on campus. Using some unarticulated but obviously twisted logic, the Crimson interpreted this policy as an affront directed exclusively at the Gay community. For some unknown reason, none of the other student groups suffered any hardship or needed a Crimson editorial to rally for its cause.

Perhaps the title of the editorial reveals the Crimson's actual position on Gay Rights even better than was intended. The title read This Year, Total Victory, and I suppose the Crimson will not be satisfied until Gays really do achieve "victory", which seems to translate to preferential treatment, or else Crimson editorialists come to their senses and realize what it is they are asking.

The objective here is not to take the wind from the sails of the Gay movement but rather to demonstrate the unmistakably liberal stamp of the Crimson editorials.

Harvard students, especially freshmen lured by the free issue and as yet unaware of the Crimson's leftward leanings, deserve less of these biased editorials which merely mouth liberal slogans and make no contribution to intelligent appraisals of issues. I have yet to see the Crimson as the source of any fresh approaches to Gay Rights.

In fact, the Crimson may have harmed the Gay movement here at Harvard more than it helped. Straight students, which the Crimson says should "mobilize" with GSA, are fast becoming disenchanted with the constant barrage of Gay literature like the "Victory" piece. Moreover, the more militant Gays who publicly flaunt their homosexuality only generate greater resistance and resentment among "straights" who might otherwise have easily accepted the Gay movement. Who isn't offended by public sexuality--be it performed by Gays or straights?

Gay rights is merely one example of both the Crimson's liberal positions and its inability to bring fresh insight to bear upon current problems. Harvard students deserve more open-minded consideration of today's issues by the Crimson's editorials. If the Crimson is earnestly and sincerely seeking solutions to some of our difficult issues like affirmative action and race relations then it should welcome diverse opinions and vigorous debate among positions all across the political spectrum. Free discussion can only accelerate the discovery of the best answers to today's problems. Let's hope the Crimson agrees. Dan Frahm '83