On a campus where victim-hood is a prized status symbol, conservatism receives none of the acclamation. I remember the arduous freshman orientation I underwent six months ago. Amherst College presented a diversity panel which consisted of a black man, a gay Indian man, an economically disadvantaged woman and a liberal white man. All of these groups, with the sole exception of the liberal white man, presented a plea for open minds and acceptance. The message appeared to be, "judge us not by race, religion, sexual preference or economic status, but rather by the content of our characters." My acceptance of this message blinded me to the fact that I, as a Republican, had been ignored. Only weeks later did I realize that I belonged to an unrepresented minority group on the panel: the very small and often reactionary conservatives.

I will be the first to admit conservatism on our campus can present an ugly face. It is often extreme. However, if conservatives are so radical, why has Amherst reaffirmed my own affinity to conservatism? Statistically, higher education is a liberalizing factor for individuals. Why, then, am I now more conservative then ever? Like many of my classmates, I often laugh when I read The Amherst Spectator's outlandish claims and views. I decry its intransigent nature as I tell myself that it does not accurately represent my beliefs. Yet, I still find a greater division between liberals and myself than with even the dreaded Theodore Hertzberg. Why is this so?

Liberalism at Amherst is more pervasive than most students recognize. I agree with David Horowitz's assertion that Amherst is not the supposed "liberal" campus it claims to be. At Amherst, "liberal acceptance" is an oxymoron. From the presence of only one acknowledged conservative professor to the anti-war graffiti, Amherst spawns reactionary conservatives and hidebound liberals. The statement made by Carson Mitchell '05 in his closed-minded and generalizing piece in the last issue of The Indicator entitled "Bush's Wartime Lies" perhaps best describes the feeling towards Republicans on campus: "The naive denial of political realities seems to be the only consistent theme among Republicans." Here the political spectrum is dominated by liberalism, and the limited room for conservativism is either ignored or mis-represented. The College ignores conservatives, not by forcing them to have a meeting hall in the basement of Pratt, but rather by denying their existence.

The failure of the SGO constitution to propose a conservative diversity senator demonstrates this point. If the purpose of diversity senators are to "ensure that all voices on campus shall be heard" especially those "communities that have been historically silenced," why doesn't the constitution recommend a conservative senator, as it does for other groups based on their minority status?

I came to Amherst as a moderate conservative, more than willing to listen to other points of view. However, the liberal community's unwillingness to accept the plausibility of different opinions has strengthened, rather than weakened, my conservative bent. I find it ironic that the very people most clamoring for acceptance are the ones least likely to have an open mind and admit opposing points of view. Once again I return to the speakers at my freshman indoctrination, remembering their cliched plea: "Don't box people in." Well, here is my plea. My name is Jack. I am a conservative. Let me out of my box.