The personal is not the political

Let me first say that I have no problem whatsoever with a healthy, civil exchange of disparate ideas. I am quite in favor of such a model of behavior, as it helps insure a free and open environment where people are unafraid to express their views. That is why Adam Balling's response to my essay of two weeks ago distressed me so.

If Mr. Balling had simply addressed those points I made with which he disagreed, I would have had no problem; however, he did not. Rather, Mr. Balling undermined his own credibility by attacking me personally, and then proceeded to air his specific grievances with the Cox protestors - an issue that I made sure not to address specifically. He describes his personal experiences and qualms with the protest group - that's fine, but it in no way belongs in a letter dealing with my essay.

He also draws arguments out of my essay that I simply never made. For example, I never once accused Oberlin's student body of being split in a left-right orientation, as Mr. Balling seems to intimate. Rather, I identified an activist-non-activist split, by no means characterizing the non-activists as conservative.

My essay meant not to deal with the Cox protest but with campus activism generally. It was a conscious decision, as I did not want my view biased by one particular way or another on the Cox protest. Yes, I did read The Real Story, but it was irrelevant to my particular argument. For Mr. Balling, not a Review editor himself, to call into question my "...self-respect as a Review editor (i.e., not blind group loyalty, but attention to fact)," is irresponsible and, frankly, infuriating.

When I set out two weeks ago to write my essay, I hoped (naively, perhaps) it might inspire just a bit of understanding, or at least make a handful of people stand back and think about the issue for half a second. From first-hand responses, I at least minimally accomplished my goal, and a few people considered why they thought what they thought.

Mr. Balling, unfortunately, was unable to step back and examine his own views before tearing down mine. He states, "Whether it is Brother Jed or an Oberlin crypto-Communist really doesn't matter, and Kramer-Duffield should have thought a little harder about that one before rushing to their aid." Quite to the contrary, I did think hard. I did not, for the most part, agree with the protestors' view of the Review's role in coverage of the Cox protest. But that does not matter, as they have, along with Brother Jed (and Jesse Helms and William Safire and dozens of others that I disagree with) the right to express their views. In our free society, so does Mr. Balling, and the Review has a responsibility (as laid out in the charter) to allow him to express those views publicly. Ideally, better judgement and respect would dictate that he not descend to the level of personal attacks and defamation in an attempt to voice his politics. That he did is truly unfortunate.

Jacob Kramer-Duffield is a college first-year and a sports editor.