Last week, the ever-colorful conservative Kenan Professor of Government Harvey C. Mansfield Jr. '53 stood up at a Faculty meeting and criticized what he views as the pervasiveness of political correctness at Harvard. Pointing to recent Commencement speakers and the offerings in the Expository Writing program, Mansfield drew hisses for his remarks.

Mansfield has become well-known at Harvard for his memorably controversial comments. In 1993, he testified on behalf of an anti-gay rights proposition in Colorado, calling the "kinky sexual practices" of gays "shameful" and saying homosexual love is "imperfect and stunted and frustrated." Mansfield has also spoken out against affirmative action, linking the practice to declining academic standards at the College.

But at the same time, it is important to have a diversity of voices, conservative and liberal alike, at Harvard. And the questions Mansfield raised are worth discussing. As for the choice of Commencement speaker, Mansfield cited three recent speakers--Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, former Philippine president Corazon Aquino and former president of Ireland Mary Robinson. "They were three women, three liberals and three mediocrities," he said, suggesting that because of her conservativism, Margaret Thatcher might have been overlooked.

But in our view, there is no good reason to believe that there is a political litmus test at work in the selection of speakers. Many factors, not least of which is the availability of the speaker, are taken into account, and we doubt Thatcher has not been pursued at some time by the University. Moreover, the three world leaders Mansfield cited as "mediocre" are far from it. Robinson, for one, is a crusader for human rights worldwide who previously revolutionized the office of the Irish presidency.

Regarding the political correctness of the Expos program, Mansfield's charge may hold a bit more water. It is true that many of the course offerings do not have the strongest reading lists, and a surprising number do focus on questions of culture and identity. Still, the program has other, bigger flaws--namely, the less-than-stellar instruction.

In choosing to focus on Expos and Commencement, two institutions on either end of the undergraduate experience, Mansfield seems to have unwisely overlooked the most fertile ground for a conservative critique of Harvard: the academic work that consumes the bulk of our time here. A discussion about the pernicious effects of multiculturalism might better focus on the prevalence of leftleaning scholars in many departments or on the fact that academic rigor in many social science classes seems sadly lacking.

Finally, to Mansfield's assertion that Harvard is too P.C.: We disagree. Students and Faculty are for the most part liberal, and many are genuinely interested in areas such as Afro-American Studies. But we do not see a crazed community in which people are afraid to share their views. We do not see an administration bowing to liberal pressure at the expense of conservative ideas.

In short, Mansfield is not Dinesh D'Souza, and this is not 1992. Discussions of multiculturalism or perceived liberal bias at Harvard are useful. But critics should choose their topics more carefully, and refrain from misapplying outdated and contentious labels.