Conervative College Press: Sadness, Peril and Greed

After reading David Kupferschmid’s article, “Alternative Papers Turn Conservative” (Page 1, Dec. 27), my only feeling was sadness. The editors and writers of these conservative tabloids may be a “minority” on college campuses (and I hope they remain so), but what disturbs me most is that their ideology is also that of the man in the Oval Office: big business, militarism and elitism.

The wave of conservatism that is snatching the minds of many collegiate Americans is a dangerous thing, especially the almost obsessive desire to make money once out of school. It is not the desire to make money that disturbs me; everyone wants to establish some sort of financial security. However, and as a recent graduate I know this, the manner in which these students go through school is what is distressing: racing through in as few years as possible, taking primarily business-oriented courses, and sacrificing almost everything else college has to offer, namely intellectual enlightenment. They scoff at the humanities, usually enrolling only when required to.

College is the time in which a young mind is supposed to mature and acquire wisdom, and one can only do this by experiencing as much diverse intellectual stimuli as possible. A business student may be a whiz at accounting, but has he or she ever experienced the beauty of a Shakespearean sonnet, or the boundless events composing Hebrew history? Most likely, he or she has not. While many of these neo-conservatives will probably go on to be financially successful, they are robbing themselves of the true purpose of collegiate academics, a sacrifice that outweighs the future salary checks.

Even more distressing than an “incomplete” university education is the fundamental ideology underlying these students’ actions (and those of Mr. Reagan), a frame of mind that scorns anything socially progressive. For example, Boston College’s George DeAngelo’s comments describing liberal campus programs as “a . . . moribund collection of drippy, nostalgic sentimens” is possibly the most asinine statement ever seen in print.

Are civil rights, affirmative action, and campus recognition of minority groups mere sentiments? No, they are necessities, and more important, products of a true democracy. I suggest Mr. DeAngelo consult a dictionary and then the Constitution to refresh his memory. To dismiss these and other socially beneficial programs as “the foolishness of the 1960s” is in itself foolish. Morever, it exemplifies the ignorant fear of progressive ideas that is prevalent in the neo-conservative ideology.

While it is no secret that many social programs end up being inefficient cost-wise, this is no reason to dismiss the program as “another liberal failure.” Instead, the program should be revamped to see if it can work, and if still unsuccessful, perhaps approached in a different manner. The idea, however, the need for any aspect of social reform, should never be abandoned.

America is the greatest country on this planet, but we do have many flaws. By attempting to eradicate these shortcomings, we only become greater, not weaker, as the conservatives would have it. Furthermore, as appears to be unknown to the editors of the Dartmouth Review, not all America can afford to sip gin and tonic and play croquet.

ROBERT S. GRIFFITH Los Angeles In the 1960s and ‘70s, when most alternative campus papers were left-wing, looking for the Communists who were allegedly supporting these enterprises was a popular public pastime.

Yet when The Times did a feature on the New Right campus press, there was an extraordinary lack of attention paid to the off-campus funding for these papers. As a former college newspaper editor, I know how difficult it is to finance a new alternative paper. The Dartmouth Review has a stunning budget of more than $100,000 a year, paid for mostly by alumni, The Times said. Who are these alumni? Who is behind the mysterious Institute for Educational Affairs, which encourages the start-up of other right-wing papers with hefty grants? What ideological and financial control do these people maintain? Can The Times be so naive as to believe that there is no practical self-interest behind these generous donations?

The names and political and financial affiliations of the donors is the real story of the right-wing campus press. And The Times blew that story badly.

JEANNE NELSON Costa Mesa