In the wake of the infamous University Hall take-over in 1969, anti-war student protestors and sympathetic Faculty members pressured the University to sever its ties with the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC). These days, ROTC classes are banned for much a different reason--Harvard views an implicit support of the military's current "don't ask, don't tell policy" as a violation of the University's anti-discrimination policies.

In this light, it seems contradictory that while Harvard students are more willing to embrace gay rights than the nation as a whole, there is strong support to bring ROTC back. According to a recent poll by The Crimson, 80 percent of students support gay marriage; 51 percent support the return of ROTC, with only 20 percent opposed.

One explanation is that while a significant number of Harvard students characterize themselves as liberal--outnumbering conservatives almost three to one--there is substantial disagreement as to what that term really means. The few broad issues that used to galvanize liberals, notably the war in Vietnam, have given way to more diverse concerns that might concern only a small fragment of self-described liberals. Today, students charge into battle under the liberal banner for gender and racial equality, gay rights and stricter University labor policies. These causes, while admirable, have failed to garner the same kind of sweeping support that enlivened the liberal crusaders in the 1960s.

The danger, however, is that the tenets of liberalism might become too blurred or too diffuse. Last spring's "Rally for Justice" brought three unrelated, but important, issues to the steps of University Hall. It is unclear whether the Faculty recognized each of the three groups' legitimate complaints or merely dismissed the demonstration as a mob of rowdy students playing with megaphones and congo drums. Without a strong center, liberalism becomes the all-purpose name-tag that accompanies a hodgepodge of grievances.

According to poll results, most students are supportive of the government's role in solving social problems, a basic tenent of the liberal creed. But alone, this basic belief is not enough. Instead, what is needed is a greater amount of dialogue among liberal groups on campus. Debate needs to be elevated above the shouting match of incommensurable aims and instead appeal to higher ideals and a common ground. Campus conservatives have become notorious for hosting their "Coming Out Dinner," an inappropriately-named social event to bolster solidarity. Perhaps what liberals need is a dinner party of their own.

Thus, the challenge that presently faces us--the liberals of our generation--is to define with more precision just exactly what it is that we believe.