I spent the Fall semester of my junior year at Harvey Mudd College. Early on, I noticed the relative lack of political activism this small technical school. While Swarthmore had a T-shirt saying "Anywhere else, it wouldnıt have been an issue," Mudd could have one saying "Anywhere but here, it would have been an issue." I found the lack of political discourse to be refreshing, and upon introspecting to find out why, I realized that Swarthmore makes me feel like a heretic.

A heretic is one whose beliefs stray from an accepted belief or doctrine. At Swarthmore, this doctrine is modern liberalism. Modern liberalism is basically a watered down version of socialism. I am not a big-business supporting Right Wing conservative, but a Classical Liberal, or a libertarian. I support pure capitalism, and hence a government protecting civil and economic liberties. I do not think that a personıs or businessıs need is an automatic moral claim on anotherıs wealth, and that it is moral for an institution (the government) to redistribute wealth without the consent of those who earned it.

I will now recount Swarthmore experiences that have contributed to my feeling like a heretic. All of them involve those ostensibly "tolerant" modern liberals. Ironically, some of those of Modern Liberal Orthodoxy are also Post Modernists. They claim that there is no truth and all morality is relative claim while holding their as political beliefs to be absolutely true and moral. I am not trying to convince anyone of my political views here. I am relating my college experience as an defender of reason, individual rights and capitalism.

Most of the incidents I recall involve one of two types of responses by modern liberals: arguments from intimidation and ad hominem remarks. The former is an attempt to make me feel bad for holding my opinions. The latter are, translated from Latin, ³at the man,² or attacks on my character rather than my views.

As a freshman, an article of mine appeared in the first issue of Common Sense. My article related a metaphor of a market as a soccer game involving children. Looking back, I see that the metaphor was not quite sound, but I still advocated the self-responsibility and authentic self-esteem that a free market rewards. The RA in the adjacent hall wrote "I like helping kids" on his board. Gee, so do I. Realizing that my only allusion to capitalism was an invisible hand reference, a hallmate said to me disdainfully, "I know what you were advocating." Gee, so did I but he achieved his goal: He made me feel bad for advocating capitalism.

In the fall of my sophomore year I responded to signs in Parrish that, to put it mildly, spoke against theories and advocated action on whim. I took this as an opportunity to refute the false dichotomy between theory and practice. No sooner did I speak of the importance of theories and principles in oneıs life did a socialist blatantly evade the issue to attack me. He accused me of killing his ancestors in Chile and of trying to impose my Western values upon people. Knowing that I liked the ideas of Ayn Rand, he also tried to refute them by citing merely the title, and not the content, of a Rand article having little to do with the issue, and hinting at how evil such an article could be. What principles was he acting upon? I shudder at the thought. Either they are despicable, or non-existent, and I donıt know which is worse. To cap it off, someone bestowed upon me the title of Swarthmoreıs own Übermensch.

I wrote another article against government funded scientific research a Swat grad was working on. The Phoenix printed a response that misrepresented my ideas titled ³The Scientist Strikes Back,² a straw man argument for the value of basic research. What was the scientist striking back at? I was writing against Statists, not scientists. I wrote a response to the article in attempt to clear my name and expose poor journalism, but The Phoenix declined by submission, as it did not want to keep debates going.

I felt, at times, as I gang member would when in enemy territory. Of course, as the collegeıs only vocal defender of peopleıs civil and economic liberties I was a gang of one. This, remember, is just how I felt.

The next episode came in Parrish where students could ask Congressmen to impose their values on other people: to continue to redistribute the earnings of all other Americans to a non-voluntary charity known as welfare. A few students accused me of not caring for the poor. I explained that I was for private voluntary charities, and they ask if I have given to any. (One student there took time to understand me.) A student, spit up some undigested Marx and Rawls he swallowed in class, accused me of holding my beliefs because I am a white middle class male. I proudly felt no guilt for it, and pointed out that my personal characteristics do not affect the truth of falsity of my views. Later that day, I left the table after I elicited the following response from a young woman: "Yes, I want you to suffer [for the sake of those already suffering]." I thought of a new meaning of "bleeding heart," and of Stalin, of course. I must relate, happily, that I had a very peaceful debate defending my views to all who posted about the welfare issue on Swat-talk.

I similar incident occurred on Parrish walls regarding Californiaıs Proposition 187. I took neither side of the issue, and cited the central problem as the very existence of the public schools and health care. There was an appeal to authority saying that since The United Nations Bill of Rights says that a personıs being born gives him a right to what certain others produce, then wealth redistribution is moral and is a right. There was also the Rawlsian claim that since I went to a private school, of course I would not think the government should coercively redistribute wealth. But I went to a government run school (where the principle pledged his allegiance to ³the Republic...under God² in the morning), and receive financial aid from all Pennsylvania tax payers.

Logically unsound responses to my ideas culminated after my short letter to the editor in The Phoenix titled: Are "Liberals" Really Tolerant? To be intolerant, I said, was to force someone to pursue another personıs values. I pointed out that while modern liberals were correct to accuse Conservatives of intolerance regarding civil liberties, the modern liberals, and anyone who favored involuntary taxation, were also intolerant regarding economic liberties. I reasoned that taxation is theft.

There were three responses in The Phoenix. The first student honestly misunderstood my position by examining my words out of context. The response second was typical. He cited by views as ³silly diatribes against taxation...from an Ayn Rand worshipper.² He did not try to refute my views of private property or theft. He also wrote, angrily, I was heartless and uncaring. Well, I am not, but even so, would my personal traits make my views wrong? I could not believe that a Swarthmore student would write such unprincipled trash. I was further disappointed that The Phoenix editors at the time again showed their dedication to quality by publishing an article misrepresenting my views. Or were they just open to any slam of capitalism?

A week later, I opened my mail box, shaking actually, at the thought of another Hellfire and Damnation speech greeting me on The Phoenix opinion pages.. Would I still be a Sinner at the Hands of Angry Statist? A philosophy major, Dave Hordiner, ı95, wrote a first class reply. He dealt with the issues at hand. I include his name because he displayedwhat all debaters should strive to emulate: reasoning. I do not agree with his views, but he tried to show my ideas to be wrong, rather than try to make me look bad and feel guilty for believing what I do. Perhaps he did not, as I think tothers have, see my views as a threat to the security of being agreed with, and hence felt the need to attack me.

Ayn Rand wrote that the smallest minority is the individual. I am sure there are other Swarthmore students who defend reason, individual rights, and capitalism. I hope that you do not feel like a heretic. I hope you do not feel that people are not tolerant to your views. If you feel as I do, however, the only thing you can do is point out when someone makes you feel that way, i.e., do not tolerate evil. Do not accept their moral code. Point out their motives. Tell them you have no shame for your beliefs. Expose them for evading the issues at hand. Challenge them to define their terms and state their premises behind their opinions.

After all, we can not communicate if we do not define the words we use. Isnıt Swarthmore about understanding the views of others? Or is Swarthmore like State Schools, a modern Cathedral, where the Orthodoxy is not that of Catholicism and god-worship, but that of Socialism and State-worship? As Objectivist philosopher David Kelley wrote in a monograph called Truth and Toleration: "Discussion among rational people is best conducted as a partnership in discovering the truth, not as combat or indoctrination."

I am not crying out that I am a victim. I am not asking for special treatment. That is not my nature. I am too responsible for that. A self-responsible student will take action to create the kind of academic environment she want to live in. Itıs up to you.