The Student News Site of Saint Louis University

The University News

The Student News Site of Saint Louis University

The University News

The Student News Site of Saint Louis University

The University News

BLOG: No Longer Silent: Confessions of a SLU Conservative

The Saint Louis University Oath of Inclusion reads, in part, “I will embrace people for the diversity of their identities, creating a community inclusive of race, ethnicity, sex, age, ability, faith, orientation, gender, class, and ideology.” By definition, I agree with this statement. A college campus should be somewhere students are comfortable, regardless of their identity.

Although we face our fair share of problems, SLU students and faculty are generally welcoming all the identities listed in the oath, except one. Many might assume that we are lacking in our treatment of race or ethnicity and although their might be work to be done there, SLU is much stronger in these areas. The identity that is most difficult for SLU students to accept is ideology, specifically political ideology. Actually, I take that back, liberal political ideologies are bred into SLU’s foundation. Conservatives, however, are constantly shunned in classes, at on campus events, and throughout campus.

That’s not to say that I’m claiming to be “oppressed” or the victim in this situation. Actually, I believe that ascribing to a minority opinion has helped me to become more educated about the opposing ideology that most of my classmates cling to.

In another section of the Oath it states, “I will challenge my worldview through education inside and outside the classroom.” My worldview is often challenged inside the classroom, but not always in a way that is beneficial for my education…or my grades. There is no denying that most members of the teaching profession, especially in higher education, ascribe to a liberal political ideology. Personally, I doesn’t matter too much to me who my professors vote for, as long as our differences in opinion do not affect my learning.

Unfortunately this is not always the case. Although I have had several more liberal professors help me achieve my educational pursuits regardless of my political opinion, others have not been so generous. In a theology class my freshman year, I was graded down 12% on an essay because I dared used the words “Ronald Reagan.” In another course, my grade dropped significantly after I outed myself as a member of the College Republicans. Why should I and other conservatives be punished because we hold somewhat of a minority opinion at SLU? I’m not saying that SLU should fill the classrooms with conservatively biased professors to even the balance.

Story continues below advertisement

This would be no more than a politicized version of affirmative action. I think it’s simply important for my fellow SLU students to be aware of what it’s like to go to class every day wondering if my disagreement with President Obama will affect my next test score. That might seem a bit dramatic, but I’m sure every other conservative at SLU can cite a time that they were unfairly targeted because of their political opinion, or at least felt excluded. On a campus that almost suffocates its students with pushes for inclusion and diversity, there is a dearth of understanding at how isolated conservatives often feel.

The overwhelming liberal bias is not simply part of our lives inside the classroom. Outside of the classroom on campus, at extracurricular events, and in university publications, conservative opinion is also stifled. The editorial and opinion pages of The University News are often filled with liberal commentary and lack conservative opinion. This makes it difficult to get all sides of any debate. Additionally, speakers on campus are notoriously liberal, which is a well known fact.

Opponents of this opinion often like to cite Mike Huckabee’s appearance as proof that SLU is balanced in their choice of speakers, but having one conservative presenter among dozens of liberal ones does not count as balanced. When the College Republicans tried to bring David Horowitz to speak last year, we were denied because he was thought to be too controversial. Yet commentator Tim Wise can imply that all Republicans are racists and get rave reviews from most people on campus.

The liberal bias does not stop, however, with SLU groups and institutions. It’s a large part of the atmosphere on campus. Students at SLU are expected to believe in man-made global warming, support gay marriage, and favor affirmative action. As a conservative, I simply do not fit into that box. I feel far from included politically on this campus. In fact, many of my opinions have resulted in a fair amount of social ostracism and stereotyping. For example, I am proud to say that, in regard to global warming, I think Al Gore is crazy.

To me, the idea that humans can affect the weather is preposterous. Unfortunately, every climate presentation I have attended is performed with the underlying assumption that global warming (I refuse to use the politically correct “climate change”) is real. Most meteorolgy classes operate the same assumption, and if SLU pushed the “green” movement even harder, I would think it’s time to change our colors from blue and white to green and white.

The same principle applies with affirmative action, but perhaps more insidiously. I believe that rewards should be based upon merit, not skin color, but unfortunately this opinion has time and time again gotten me labeled a racist and “not inclusive.” Being stereotyped in such a way really helps me feel like a part of the SLU community. Although I feel sometimes feel uncomfortable with my opinions on affirmative action and global warming, the one issue I barely discuss is gay marriage. I was born and raised a Catholic and have gone to Catholic school most of my life. Therefore, I have grown up believing that marriage should be between a man and a woman. End of story. I should not get so much flack for an opinion as simple as this, but I do. People who do not support gay marriage are often accused of denying others “civil rights” or being prejudiced. Let me be clear, I do not support the mistreatment of others based on sexual orientation. I do not treat people differently based on their orientation and rebuke those who do so.

Unfortunately, this does not stop me and others who share my opinions from being falsely labeled as “prejudiced.” If you’re against affirmative action, you’re a racist. If you don’t believe in global warming, you’re denying science. If you believe in traditional marriage, you’re homophobic. How in the world does this promote inclusion? Since when is having an alternative opinion something to be ashamed of? In the end, it’s not something to be ashamed of and I no longer plan on altering my opinions to fit the whims of those around me.

To conclude, I would like to add that I am not comparing my position in an ideological minority to that of someone in a racial or ethnic minority. It’s simply not an equal comparison. There are worse things to endure than unfair grading or disapproving glances from other students. However, I do believe that it’s important for other students to be aware of how different politcal ideologies are treated on campus. I’m sick of trying to grow in political knowledge when everyone around me is telling me that my information is false, or worse, prejudiced. SLU does so much to promote “inclusion” as long as it only includes people who are part of the majority opinion.

Conservatives who support voter ID laws, a small government, capitalism are rebuked. And don’t even get me started on what happens when I reveal that I’m proud to be an American. If my identity as a proud conservative, Catholic American gets me labeled as a racist, sexist or whatever, so be it. It’s ridiculous that my opinions should make me feel excluded from the SLU community. If SLU students really want to live up to the “Oath of Inclusion,” I challenge everyone to take a second look at how their political ideology affects their status on campus and to remain open minded and “inclusive” of those they disagree with.

View Comments (28)
Donate to The University News
$1910
$750
Contributed
Our Goal

Your donation will support the student journalists of Saint Louis University. Your contribution will help us cover our annual website hosting costs.

More to Discover
Donate to The University News
$1910
$750
Contributed
Our Goal

Comments (28)

All The University News Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • M

    Mark GlennonDec 22, 2020 at 7:56 pm

    Bravo to you for speaking up, Ms. Lutz, and for learning the correct lesson from it. This madness is happening at most so-called universities.

    Reply
  • E

    Eric BehnaOct 19, 2011 at 9:57 pm

    oops didnt realize this was so old

    Reply
  • E

    Eric BehnaOct 19, 2011 at 9:55 pm

    I laughed out loud when I realized this article was about SLU being too liberal for you and making you feel left out. Yeah the Jesuits can be considered “liberal” but our student body and CERTAINLY our administration are far more conservative than other Jesuit universities and SLU is by no means a liberal school. I would argue that most of our students are not politically active or aware at all and don’t care whether you are conservative or liberal. And as far as the people that are allowed to speak here, the SLU administration will continue to deny speakers that are too controversial (ON THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT) because they are extremely image concious and afraid of any sort of conflict or bad press. Anyway if you are really this perturbed that you go to a university whose professors teach accurate, proven, and up to date scientific concepts such as climate change maybe you should consider transfering to Oral Roberts University, Alma Mater of Michele Bachmann. I’m sure you could take some thrilling classes there about how the first humans rode around on dinosaurs and how the Founding Fathers intended America to be a Christian nation.

    Reply
    • I

      ItsmeJan 29, 2024 at 9:40 am

      SLU is, indeed, liberal. SLU is the first Jesuit university to receive the Higher Education Excellence in Diversity Award.

      Reply
  • P

    Patrick HitchinsSep 6, 2011 at 4:37 pm

    To the Original Poster,

    In some ways I agree with your stance that conservatives on SLU’s campus will indeed be more challenged by the majority of SLU students. However, it must be noted that there are many shades of conservatives and liberals. I think what tends to happen is that many students who identify with a more liberal political view tend to be far more vocal than their conservative counterparts. I also think that more “Hardcore” liberals and conservative tend to cling to more controversial points of view and that these can overwhelm those who are more moderate.

    I agree with you that the term Marriage should only apply to a man and woman, but that there needs to be a union option available to same-sex couples where they can enjoy the same legal and societal benefits that a married couple would. I feel that this option would be favorable to both sides of the debate as it would appear more acceptable to more religious persons. What I have found is that many same-sex advocacy groups push for what seems to be an all or nothing approach, “If you aren’t completely with us you’re a homophobe and against us.” I find that wrong and it leaves a bad taste in many people’s mouths.

    Reply
  • G

    GabeSep 3, 2011 at 2:01 pm

    College Proffesors tend to be a liberal group. That being said, SLU is very good about upholding the more conservative Catholic dogma. They strongly support the Pro Life organizations on campus and have allowed conservative speakers in the past.
    It is one thing to say Professors are liberal, and another thing to say the whole school is anti-consevative. During my 4 years at the school, the student population tended to lean to the right more than the left. Being a private school the student population tends to be more conservative. There is no way a student with conservative views can feel slighted and ignored on this campus when many people agree with your views and readily display them on a frequent basis.

    Reply
  • F

    Fed Up With Stupid ArgumentsMay 5, 2011 at 10:44 am

    Great. A point is made (in the original blog). Two legitimate and respectful responses are made (Thomas and Washington). Then, the original point maker does two things. First, they refuse to acknowledge legitimate arguments that disagree with her point of view (for absurd reasons like “you don’t use your real name”)… then, for the other argument, basically says “everybody come to the SLU College Republicans facebook page to continue this discussion.” Way to be tough. Run back to your SLUCR friends so they can gang up on Thomas and Washington.

    Good BS marketting tactic too. Maybe you’ll get more followers this way. It’s garbage.

    Look – you made some legit points in your post. And Thomas and Washington made some legit points as well. I loved reading this, because it was some well educated and legitimate debate. Until you freaked out, played the “personal attack” card, and refused to keep talking. I’m politically independant……. and this is why!!!!!

    Reply
    • A

      AmeliaMay 5, 2011 at 12:14 pm

      It is not that I refuse to continue the argument, but as I said, the continuation of the debate is on the SLUCR fanpage. I simply did not want to have a debate on two separate websites.

      Reply
      • W

        Washington IrvingMay 5, 2011 at 1:44 pm

        Maybe – and I don’t wish to be rude – but maybe that’s why the unews has “such a liberal bent”? The internet is great because it can expose us to all sorts of new viewpoints, but what usually happens is that the things we view become increasingly narrower. If you only wish to comment on the SLUCR homepage, amongst all your friends and ideological allies, well, then maybe there’s some bias going on on your end as well? I’m not a member of SLU-Dems but if I was, and I only wanted to discuss an issue on the SLU-Dems fanpage, then I’m sure conservative folks would accuse me of retreating to be amongst my own. You can’t have a productive dialogue if you’re not willing to take risks.

        Reply
        • A

          AmeliaMay 5, 2011 at 1:50 pm

          It’s not that I do not want to argue my point here, I simply don’t want to copy/paste or rephrase everything I have said. Had the debate started here instead of on the fanpage, it would continue here and I would refer everyone from the fanpage to this site.

          Reply
    • J

      JaneMay 6, 2011 at 12:38 am

      Rock on!

      This is why I don’t even bother anymore. I actually learned long ago, debating on the internet is useless, it always ends the same way it begins. People gang up on one another, divert the discussion to pointless things. There is no moderator to keep people on track. My opinion (and not fact) is that debates are best served in person.

      The reality is, you’d have to be a pretty weak person to find your entire belief system shaken up by a stranger on the internet. Yes, one can be open to different views and admit if they are right and wrong, but for the most part, people who get on the internet trying to change other peoples views or those who engage in debate with the intent on trying to change other peoples views are probably wasting their time.

      Reply
  • J

    JeffMay 5, 2011 at 9:35 am

    On Climate Change…
    For a conservative, the climate change debate is usually governed by his or her’s view on the importance of the capitalist market. Most conservatives will not sacrifice the growth of our economy before wanting to install any regulations for greenhouse gas. In short, the health of the economy is more important to a conservative than the health of the planet. A more liberal mind-set will insist that we take care of the planet and build a healthy economy on that principal. I can see that position as more valid because the Earth produces and sustains our lives, as long as the Earth is healthy enough to do so! I cannot be certain if global warming is man-made or part of the natural cycle. I am 99.9% certain that mankind will not do anything about it until it is too late. We will not do anything about it mostly because of the complexity of the argument explained above. The polarization caused by the debate is to deep. I am certain we will so something in a reactive way. If the World Trade Center memorial is under water along with 1/2 the East Coast, people would be more motivated to take action.

    Reply
  • D

    DanielMay 4, 2011 at 5:39 pm

    “It also shows that conservatives often are much more tolerant of differing views than are their liberal counterparts, which is a bit odd considering liberals love to preach tolerance at all costs. with the exception, of course, being tolerance for the conservative political ideology. oh, the hypocrisy.”

    To be fair, no it doesn’t. The views or attitude of one person doesn’t equal a trend. You can find one or a handful of people in any population that is a certain way. It’s just as likely these people are the exception, not the rule.

    As for the rest of this, I thought it was reasonably well done. The one part I’d pick at is that your justification for opposing gay marriage. I’m fine with that point of view, but if being raised Catholic is what that opinion solely rests on, it indicates that with regards to this particular issue, you haven’t been appropriately critical of your own point of view. Having an opinion about something for no other reason than it is what you were raised to believe is intellectually lazy, and if you think about it I think you’ll agree. I was also raised Catholic so I’m familiar with the things you were taught from a young age up until now. But I also know that espousing these views without proper examination of them would leave me vulnerable in any meaningful discussion on ethics or philosophy.

    There are lines of thought you could follow that would allow you to arrive at the same conclusion, and would be more nuanced and indicate an appropriate amount of thought and criticism of your own position to your ideological supporters and opponents. Doing so would provide an appropriate amount of context on the issue while also giving strength to the belief that you hold. Additionally, this isn’t a black-and-white question of either this or that. There are other points of view on this and most other issues than the polemic ones pervasive in contemporary American political discussion.

    Reply
  • M

    Molly SheridanMay 4, 2011 at 11:36 am

    Reply
    • M

      m.May 4, 2011 at 11:40 am

      hey I didn’t intend on using my real name…my computer automatically put it in there before I realized it. Im not getting involved in this as a debate or anything. or saying what I believe. just showing that there is science research on each side of the global warming issue.

      Reply
  • K

    KelseyMay 4, 2011 at 12:27 am

    hey “washington irving”, your point that you have never felt discriminated against for your liberal views is completely irrelevant to this discussion of LIBERAL bias and proves nothing. No, actually I take that back. It does help prove Amelia’s point that liberal views are much more widely accepted as the norm on campus. It also shows that conservatives often are much more tolerant of differing views than are their liberal counterparts, which is a bit odd considering liberals love to preach tolerance at all costs. with the exception, of course, being tolerance for the conservative political ideology. oh, the hypocrisy.

    and “not attacking”, talking down to people is rude. just sayin.

    Reply
    • W

      Washington IrvingMay 5, 2011 at 1:46 am

      My point was not that bias doesn’t exist, rather, that one incident does not an epidemic make. Most people are fairly calm about the whole thing. There’s a LOUD minority who might make things uncomfortable, but on the
      whole I’ve always found people on both sides to be fairly friendly.

      Reply
  • A

    AmeliaMay 3, 2011 at 11:45 pm

    And yes, that last comment is not based on a specific argument and might delve into ad hominem territory, but it’s hard for me to take anyone seriously who is not able to back their beliefs with their name. The anonymity makes be believe that you both simply just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

    Reply
  • A

    AmeliaMay 3, 2011 at 11:43 pm

    For “Washington Irving” and “Not Attacking,” please refer to the SLUCR fanpage for further commentary on any of my specific points. To avoid starting a debate on every single point, I just have one question. Why don’t the last two commenters use their own names? If you really want an honest debate about any issue, I would appreciate it if you would be brave enough to face the kind of criticism that I’m facing now for my beliefs. Of course it’s not fun, but it’s something that must be endured if you really believe in what you’re saying.

    Reply
    • W

      Washington IrvingMay 5, 2011 at 1:42 am

      Washington Irving IS my own name. My parents really liked Catch-22. What can I say?

      Reply
  • N

    Not Attacking, but Posing a ViewMay 3, 2011 at 10:40 pm

    Amelia, Washington was not attacking you. He was proposing an alternate view, and if you can’t argue it back, if you decide to sit back and stay silent, then you don’t stand to validate your views against opposing ones. This is the purpose of debate. He gave an argument – a premise, evidence, and conclusion (1.) climate change is real (2.) cited it as a scientific problem and (3.) said that we should be careful about it. When your response isn’t about explaining why you think climate change is not caused by mankind, then you are the one killing the debate, not him.

    For example, this isn’t an attack either. This is me making the argument that he is making an argument, and then I clearly show what an argument is and why his response matches the structure of an argument. That is my evidence. I concluded by saying that he is in fact, not attacking you. He was even nice enough to propose an outlet for you to bring your political views to the forefront for people to read.

    By pointing out instead that he, demonstrably, proves your point that people are attacking, you in fact attack him. You called him out in his person and not on the substance of what he was saying – this is fact. That’s called ad hominem.

    Again, this isn’t an attack against your character or person or political views. This is me merely pointing out that your argument is not as strong as you think it might be.

    Reply
  • A

    AmeliaMay 3, 2011 at 10:13 pm

    Thomas-Refer to facebook for response. I do appreciate your respect for the debate. We might disagree on just about everything, but I like how you were honest in your critique.

    “Washington Irving”-I don’t feel like you want to have an honest debate, you simply want do baselessly criticize. Therefore, I will not dignify your comment with a response. You did, however, prove my point about how harshly conservatives are treated on this campus. Thanks.

    Reply
    • W

      Washington IrvingMay 5, 2011 at 1:49 am

      “To me, the idea that humans can affect the weather is preposterous. Unfortunately, every climate presentation I have attended is performed with the underlying assumption that global warming (I refuse to use the politically correct ?climate change?) is real. Most meteorolgy classes operate the same assumption, and if SLU pushed the ?green? movement even harder, I would think it?s time to change our colors from blue and white to green and white.”

      I don’t mean to be rude, or be attacking, but while one event does not an epidemic make, sometimes a string of related events DOES a pattern make. I’d rather listen to a trained weather professional as opposed to somebody who happens to have opinions about weather. Do you have evidence to back up your claims? If there really IS no link between humans and weather, I’d love to see the info.

      Reply
  • W

    Washington IrvingMay 3, 2011 at 9:30 pm

    Also, it’s not like – I assume, I wouldn’t know – you can’t write a conservative commentary in this paper. I think this link has ways to get in touch with people, maybe you should suggest a topic?

    Reply
    • W

      Washington IrvingMay 3, 2011 at 9:31 pm

      Reply
  • W

    Washington IrvingMay 3, 2011 at 9:08 pm

    In the same way that you’re a global warming denier, I’m a grade-gate denier. I find it hard to believe that you were marked down for simply voicing support for Ronald Reagan. I’ve had conservative professors and never received demerits for supporting liberal politicians. A few sarcastic comments: “Ah, the communist has something to say!” but I never felt resented or graded harshly because of my political beliefs. Professors, on the whole, have been remarkably more welcoming of differing beliefs than even my fellow students. I don’t think it’s a fair argument to judge a community based on the actions of one or two bad experiences.

    Speaking of global warming – there’s nothing “cool” or “individual” about denying climate change. So you don’t like Al Gore. There are real environmental problems facing our planet, something even the much vaunted corporations are going to have to face. It’s going to be 32 degrees tonight. In May. That’s not a normal thing to have happen. Something is distinctly messed up. We have to do something about it.

    Reply
  • T

    Thomas BloomMay 3, 2011 at 3:44 pm

    As a liberal student on this campus, and a person that was tangentially involved in the formation of the oath of inclusion, I just wanted to offer a few of my thoughts on this.

    First off, I agree that on this campus, as well as at many universities, the opinions of conservatives are not respected or considered valid as much as they should be. A necessary component of any good education is an opportunity to be exposed to diverse perspectives and opinions, and the failure to provide that is harmful to not only those opinions that are silenced, but to all who miss the opportunity to hear them. Speaking with conservative friends, and observing tendencies in the classroom, I agree that we have a problem at this university – we could do more to ensure that people of all political ideologies feel comfortable in the classroom.

    That being said, I take issue with some points made in this blog:

    “SLU students are faculty are generally welcoming all the identities listed in the oath, except one.”

    -As someone that is very active in cultural diversity and social justice oriented organizations, I promise you that as bad as you might have it justifying your political views on this campus, students dealing with marginalization because of their race, sexual orientation, gender identity, faith, ability, etc. have it much, much worse. Many people on this campus do not feel safe, much less comfortable. I know that later in the essay you do explicitly state that you are not trying to equate your situation to this kind of marginalization, but your first paragraph seems to imply that we have mostly solved the problems of discrimination and hatred on our campus, and I feel that we actually have a long way to go.

    “When the College Republicans tried to bring David Horowitz to speak last year, we were denied because he was thought to be too controversial.”

    -The College Democrats vocally opposed the University decision to not allow Horowitz to speak. While we felt his views were not only misguided but actually somewhat prejudiced, we felt that censorship was not the appropriate means of combatting this. We would have rather heard him speak and engaged in a discussion, but this opportunity was lost.
    -While this particular instance is characterized as liberal bias on the part of the University, I think that there are countless examples of liberal speakers being censored here as well. The university will not sponsor any speaker that speaks from a pro-choice perspective, a pro-same sex marriage perspective, or a pro-contraception perspective, for example. Also, the banning of the Vagina Monologues from SLU’s campus is a great example of the University banning a liberal perspective.

    “Students at SLU are expected to believe in man-made global warming, support gay marriage, and favor affirmative action.”

    -I did a double take when you used gay marriage as an example. We are on a catholic campus. Opposition to same sex relationships, much less same sex marriage, is written into policy here. Student groups cannot advocate for same sex marriage on campus. Staff members that live on campus are not allowed to live with anyone except a spouse of the opposite sex, and partner benefits are not available for SLU employees with same sex partners.
    -I am all for diversity of perspective in the classroom. However, you cannot expect a professor to blindly accept anything students believe simply because they believe it. I think you are entitled to your view, and if, in a science class, you properly use the scientific method to demonstrate it, then I don’t think that any professor should be able to call your view invalid or reduce your grade. However, when you say that you don’t believe that humans can impact the weather (I think you mean climate), you are going to have a tough time because there are a lot of satellite pictures of ozone holes to prove you wrong.

    On your point about conservatives being rebuked for voter ID laws, I would point out that the SLU Student Government actually failed to make any statement in opposition to these laws, which seems like more of a rebuke to liberals than conservatives.

    Last thing, I promise: I really do agree that conservative opinions deserve more respect in the classroom, as well as in extracurriculars. As President of Rainbow Alliance, I would never want anyone to feel uncomfortable getting involved because of their political beliefs, and if anyone did feel alienated from the group for this reason, I would be happy to talk with them and find a solution.

    Reply
    • M

      MarkAug 4, 2011 at 10:32 pm

      A few Thoughts
      It’s a widely accepted fact that students who are “marginalized” find safe havens on college campuses.

      Students are often taught to believe a certain liberal dogma: it’s even worse in graduate school.

      Reply