WE HARVARD students like to think of ourselves as the intellectual elite, the future movers and shakers and president makers. We think we participate in vibrant, insightful debate with our classmates. We tell ourselves that our brilliant analyses of the issues will solve the world's problems in the 21st century.

What a joke.

Harvard does not have free discussion. We have liberal totalitarianism.

Every debate at Harvard must pay homage to a "politically correct" (PC) ideology. Just the expression should strike fear in the heart of free thinkers. The mere idea--even if half in jest--that there is a correct, defined political agenda that determines a person's merit is abhorrent.

And PC has created its own negation: PW. Politically wrong. If you do not agree with us, you are wrong. No matter how much you have considered the issue, you are wrong. You are wrong. This is not debate, it is totalitarianism.

Harvard's vocal left-wing publications and activist groups--notably Perspective, The Crimson, Committee on Central America (COCA), Anti-ROTC Action Committee (ARAC) and South African Solidarity Committee (SASC)--have reached virtually identical liberal conclusions on what is "correct" and have delineated the sides of campus debate in black and white.

On the one side is the "politically correct:" abortion on demand, no homophobic ROTC on campus, support for HUCTW, divestment now, U.S. out of Central America now, more minority faculty now, no more final clubs now--you've heard all this a million times.

On the other side are the ignorant, unwashed masses. Their views are wrong.

Harvard's sheeplike liberal majority is large enough and accepting enough of this PC ideology to stifle campus debate. Conservatives, creationists, fundamentalists and final club members are automatically condemned for their immorality.

The dominance of the PC is all the greater because it controls the Harvard media. With the exception of the fairly incoherent conservatism of the Salient and the white-bread blandness of The Independent, virtually every Harvard publication espouses the party line. The Crimson has been tireless and tiresome in its editorial support for every PC cause. Perspective and the Subterranean Review go one step further by adding a dash of socialism. Even when the Advocate and Padan Aram approach political issues in book reviews, they never stray far from the party line.

The result of this campus activism and media bombardment is that the only voice that gets heard at Harvard is the voice of the PC.

THE PC ideology is nauseating in its hypocrisy. Although it demands tolerance and acceptance for "alternative" political systems and social mores, the PC totalitarianism of Harvard refuses to listen to its opponents. The Perspective and The Crimson are rabid in protecting free speech rights, but they do not listen when that free speech occurs.

Students who try to argue with their PC friends about abortion are ignored: one student said that an acquaitance of his simply ended the conversation as soon as he said he opposed abortion on demand. Even in Moral Reasoning 22 ("Justice"), a class of 1000 students hissed down a student who voiced support for creationism.

Or take the ROTC debate last spring. Among members of ARAC, for example, support for the mere existence of the military was wrong. The questions of the necessity of the military and of the possibility that Harvard students could change it from within were simply irrelevant. Many of the PC ideologues dismissed the military as homophobic, sexist, racist, classist, anti-intellectual and--God Forbid!--violent. Since the military is so clearly evil, we should not pay the least attention to its supporters.

Of course more people would be offended if they listened to the arguments of the other side, but that's the point. Tolerance is not just letting homosexuals into ROTC, it is making yourself listen to someone who is PW.