Since fellow Crimson editor and editor of The Harvard Salient Travis R. Kavulla ’06-’07 appeared on The Fox News Channel last week, I have frittered away my nights futilely trying to think of something controversial that would win me my minute of national fame. Thankfully, Peretz Professor of Yiddish Literature Ruth R. Wisse’s Wall Street Journal op-ed last Thursday sparked an epiphany that ended my search:

Harvard students are decidedly conservative.

You might think that I am crazy, or that I have been trying some of the LSD that is floating around campus, but Wisse is correct: the Harvard student body—normally viewed as a bastion of the liberal elite—has undergone a conservative conversion.

Wisse and I, however, differ sharply on what that transformation entails; students today are indeed conservatives, but of the change-fearing traditional Burkean stripe, not the moralistic Republican type.

Today, the term “conservative” is generally applied to so-called “Republican values”: anti-abortion, pro-abstinence, anti-taxes, pro-religion, etc. It represents the people who are outraged by America’s crumbling nuclear family and are disgusted by society’s tolerance of meaningless sex. And Wisse uses this definition of conservatism when she connects students’ aversion to change with their supposed moral values.

She wrote that the student body “has had its fill of radicalism. Sobered by the heavy financial burdens most of their families have to bear for their schooling, they want an education solid enough to warrant the investment. Chastened by the fall-out of the sexual revolution and the breakdown of the family, they are wary of human experiments that destabilize society even further.”

Does that look like the picture you see from your dorm window? Probably not, but Wisse believes that these characteristics of the “new generation” of Harvard students prompted the student body to reject the Faculty’s recent coup and support University President Lawrence H. Summers. Unfortunately, Wisse’s simple explanation does not withstand scrutiny; not only is she out of touch with students one third her age—a day of Core classes and a night at a final club would refute both of her claims—but she also uses a very specific, and ultimately untenable, definition of the Harvard “conservative.”

Like most of her tenured peers in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS), Wisse is still fixated by the ideological warfare of the 1960s. The pro-sex, pro-drugs, pro-Rock N’ Roll activists are “liberals,” and the Lacoste-popping, pro-establishment types are “conservatives.” And, of course, no one bridges these heavily polarized political camps.

But modern Harvard has muddled these simple classifications. There are gays in the Fox who support Students for Marriage Equality, but are appalled at the thought of ending legacy admissions. There are debutantes who still “come out” to society at galas, but who also do not mind hooking up randomly on weekends. Twenty-first century Cantabrigians can be proponents of conservatism without fitting into Wisse’s archetype of conservatives.

At Harvard, “conservatism” is Burkean; the unifying theme is apathy or even resistance to change. This conservative consensus is a product of students who are too busy, cynical, or self-satisfied to battle the status quo. George Bryant—a fixture around Harvard Yard for his daily distribution of Revolutionary Communist Party flyers—said of his discussions with students, “They are a pretty skeptical bunch about these changes. People do want to make a difference, but their expectations have been lowered in comparison to my generation because they have grown up with a sense of a cemented status quo.”

Instead of occupying University Hall to protest administrative policies or building shanties in the Yard to argue for divestment, today’s reformers operate within the system, usually organizing change subtly through established bureaucratic channels and calm, rational discussion. Even small demonstrations of “active protest,” such as the Student Labor Action Movement’s trick-or-treating trip to Summers’ house, are construed as too extreme by many students.

But of course there is a limit to this reticence towards change, especially when the alterations affect students’ day-to-day lives. As Wisse oddly attests, much of the student body strongly supported Summers throughout his saga even though he endeavored to shake up the entire University. Nevertheless, even in this situation, the changes supported by students were measured and gradual; Summers’ initiatives, such as the new Curricular Review and Allston planning, were long-term and much-debated transformations, not quick or erratic fixes.

Ultimately, Wisse stumbles onto a correct point—Harvard students are conservative—while remaining fundamentally incorrect; if one follows Wisse’s definitions of political allegiances, Harvard students are still as “liberal” as ever—pro-gay, pro-sex, pro-civil liberties.

So, Mr. O’Reilly or Mr. Hannity, think twice before you invite me on your shows. My answer to the question “Are Harvard students conservative?” will probably not be the explanation you want to hear.

Andrew D. Fine ’09, a Crimson editorial editor, lives in Stoughton Hall.