Hypocrisy and Harvard liberals are longtime companions with a history of co-habitation. The funny thing is that most liberals don't even see their hypocrisy.

Harvard liberals continuously assert their commitment to respecting the rights of the minority, the voiceless, the marginalized. Their hypocrisy lies in their conveniently changing definitions of what constitutes a "true" minority.

What is meant by the term "marginalized," the topic of countless English class discussion sections? As is evident from the term itself, the marginalized are on the fringes of society, excluded from the society's central discourse. They are often looked down upon by those who occupy the center.

At Harvard, being conservative means being marginalized. And liberals, instead of respecting the rights of this beleaguered minority and listening to what conservatives have to say, work tirelessly to keep them marginalized.

Not every minority is necessarily marginalized. But at Harvard, the left-wing's treatment of those who disagree with it has indeed forced dissenters to the margins and stripped them of voice. The left-wing employs various effective, fiendishly brilliant techniques to deny conservatives a part in campus debate.

First, the liberal campus press has succeeded in demonizing the right. Conservatives, because of the powerful groups arrayed against them, make their voices strident and loud--merely so they can be heard. When they do, they are portrayed as fanatics, fundamentalists, or just plain nasty people you wouldn't like to be around.

Here's an example. In a Crimson profile of Harry J. Wilson '93, for last year's Commencement issue, the following outside blurb was written: "The Nice Republican: Harry James Wilson is a Reagan conservative who cares about the poor and disenfranchised."

Let's read between the lines here. Blurbs are designed to get people to read the story, so they point out the interesting and the unusual. The implication here is that Wilson is rare because he's a conservative who a) cares for the poor and b) is nice. The ever-so-subtle inference is that normal conservatives hate the poor and are mean, reprehensible creatures.

The second powerful tactic liberals use is labelling. Liberals apply certain negative labels to Republicans and conservatives to discredit their opinions, so those opinions cease to count.

This strategy was explained by Thomas E. Woods '94, vice-president of the Harvard-Radcliffe Republican Club, who has said that Harvard could be compared to the Soviet Union under Khrushchev. While no one would suggest that Khrushchev's U.S.S.R. and today's Harvard are equally repressive, a similarity exists. In both places, Woods said last spring, "if you hold certain views you're wrong, out of the bounds of debate."

The way to place people outside the debate is to hurl epithets at them, taking away the credibility they need in order to participate. Woods cited "fascist" and "racist" as examples of terms used in "reckless name-calling" by liberals.

"One time, I debated someone very heavily on an issue, and did my best," Harvard Republican Action Committee President N. Van Taylor '96 told me last spring. "Her response to her friend, after the debate, was, `Oh, he's crazy."

Liberals claim that conservatives aren't fit to speak by denying their ability to reason--which is a part of their very humanity. While certain campus conservatives may derive their opinions more from emotion than from rationality, liberals put all conservatives under one big umbrella of irrationality.

What is tragic (for liberals, that is) about the left-wing's treatment of the right is that ultimately liberals only end up hurting themselves. Strange as it may sound, Harvard liberals need conservatives. They need a watchdog opposition to challenge their views. They need vocal ideological foes to point out the inconsistencies in their argumentation, so they can repair them.

Without the right, the political discourse on Harvard's campus would be one of the liberals, by the liberals and for the liberals (if it isn't that already). Campus discussions of important issues would boil down to huge, politically-correct masturbatory sessions, with dialogues like this: