Every Monday and Thursday after my 9:55 class, I pick up the latest copy of The Eagle. After laughing over the police blotter, I make my way to the conservative or liberal column. Each day I enjoy the rants from both sides about a current issue. However, putting ideologies aside, I find a striking difference between the articles. Every Monday I read the same rhetoric and the same generalizations repeated over and over again from the great conservative spin machine.
In each conservative argument within The Eagle, I hear the same exact talking points and the same exact examples that I get from my conservative friend who attends Villanova University. These are also the same talking points I see when I watch Fox News (which I watch when I am in need of a laugh). It is interesting how the press secretary, the pundits and Republican ground troops all seem to spit out the same rhetoric. Usually I bite the bullet and listen to the other side of the aisle; I mean, listening and compromise is the backbone of democracy, right? But in the Feb. 14 issue of The Eagle, I got pushed "over the line" if you will.
Eric Fantegrossi, within your giant conspiracy theory that all post-secondary education is controlled by Karl Marx, you do not point out one single liberal professor. I do agree that both of your examples, Sami Al-Arian and Ward Churchill, are "radical professors," as you put it. However, these men are not liberal, they are anti-American. I know your pundits drive it down your throat that all liberals hate America, but frankly they are lying. What I am about to tell you might blow your mind, but try to put down the Ann Coulter. Liberals don't hate America; they just feel that they can lead America in a better direction. But this is the purpose of democracy, to have brilliant ideological minds come together to compromise and construct the best policy for America. A democracy is not when one political party smears the other party and calls it unpatriotic in order to gain absolute power.
But I have digressed, so back to your article. You used two examples of anti-American professors to prove that most professors are liberal, thereby training the youth of America to be liberal. Now if you had examples of professors preaching vegetarianism, the abolition of nuclear power or the mandatory wearing of tie-dye, you would have me interested. But you don't, you use a small minority to generalize a greater class of people. Your article is dishonest, preaching rhetoric by demonizing Democrats. You begin your article with a criticism of Democrats and their comments of "Jesus freaks", but you sir are just as immature to call all Democrats un-American.
This is why Sen. Teresa Fedor's objections to the academic bill of rights are justifiable. There might be a small proportion of anti-American professors like Al-Arian and Churchill, but we do not have to let the government intervene and weed them out. That is the job of the school, and I completely agree with your statement that "a great deal of blame should fall on the University of South Florida for failing to conduct background checks of professors." The responsibility falls on the schools to weed out biased professors, not a Republican-controlled government seeking to remove anyone who does not completely agree with their ideology.
Please Eric, when I read your conservative columns in the future, I have one request. Represent conservative ideology without demonizing or misrepresenting the ideologies of those that dissent with you.
Chris Smith is a freshman in the School of International Service.
