Being the glutton for punishment that I am, I frequently read David B. Lat's bi-monthly columns.

Lat himself says in his most recent piece ("Bleed On, Liberals," opinion, April 30, 1994) that he has "little or nothing intelligent to say about important issues." And certainly, after reading so many of his engaging, but unsatisfying arguments, such as his critique of typos in prochoice flyers, I'm not sure why I keep pouring salt on the wound. But, like him, I never learn.

I have to agree with Lat that it's foolishness to think that our political leanings aren't influenced by our social environment. A simple straw poll of how many Peninsula members over the years were educated in strict religious schools would prove that point. But this is one of many examples of why it's ludicrous for Lat to take the position that it's conservatives at Harvard who must do all the thinking.

Lat is right that conservatives do have to hone some of their more simplistic arguments when they come to Harvard, but from what I've seen, conservatives like Lat begin with the assumption that they have some hold on absolute truths, and only refine their arguments for the sake of reinforcing the beliefs that they cannot bear to relinquish, rather than to promote a dialogue which allows them to refine their understanding of the issues.

As an aside, I should mention that any student who is a self-proclaimed socialist (to those who subscribe to Peninsula's lexicon, a "socialist" is everyone who is to the left of Peninsula on the political spectrum, including George Bush) will receive much more flak at Harvard than most conservatives. Remember that the basics of economics are taught by a former Reagan advisor here at "liberal" Harvard.

Yes, we all have our biases. But part of the liberal bias is to listen to all sides and consider all the possiblities. It is conservatives who will only allow their "thinking" to take them so far.

What Lat seems to be arguing is that a conservative born into a family that is pro-life and pro-death penalty should not succumb to the idea that he or she can rationally attack the inherent contradiction, but rather should smile and adhere to the status quo.

Recognizing that sometimes we have to fight our biases is what makes the thinking liberal a better vessel for dealing with matters of politics and ideology than a Lat-type conservative who, for reasons of religion or tradition, believes that "the most profound questions" are beyond our understanding, so why go through the messy process of rational discourse anyway. (As the venerable Jack Handey once said, "I think that I am a really good listener. It's just that I always laugh really hard afterward.")

Perhaps we do have our share of so called "knee-jerk liberals," I suspect that part of the reason Lat so relishes their existence at Harvard is that they do little to advance liberal causes.

Hopefully we liberals at Harvard are smart enough to recognize that when we take our beliefs for granted, we become no better than the conservatives we decry.

It's difficult to formulate arguments against publications that are thrown back out of the room in disdain. Unless we all keep thinking about the issues and rethinking our biases, and (as Lat says) taking action, we'll find that we've lost the capacity to defend our ideas, and instead become entrenched in superstition. Inie Park '94-'95