Over the past year, President Bollinger has announced both a new position, Vice Provost for Diversity Initiatives, and most recently, a $15 million effort toward hiring woman and minorities. I'm not going to lie, I expected no less from President Bollinger; in doing so, however, he has trampled that fine line between sincere efforts and blind multiculturalism when he appointed Marxist professor, Jean Howard, to the position.

Somewhere, Barbara Grutter's laughing.

Thanks in part to the omnipotence of Google and a rightfully concerned alumnus, a search of Vice Provost Howard's name reveals the speakers list for 2000's Marxism convention, delightfully entitled, "Marxism 2000: The Party's Not Over." A literature professor and author, Vice Provost Howard has written, spoken, and lectured on Marxist themes in Shakespeare (I couldn't stop thinking about the Bourgeoisie in Macbeth); she is, I believe, what they would call a "neo" Marxist. Now, on the campus level, Howard's political views-namely her anti-Israel stance-have been highlighted by Robert Johnson of the History News Network, who wrote, "Vice Provost Howard signed the petition demanding that Columbia divest from companies doing business in Israel-a petition Bollinger rightly denounced as 'grotesque.'" With Howard's $15 million in hand and a strong say in hiring, what odds do a white male, Jewish woman, or conservative capitalist have to be hired? You know the answer as well as I.

This represents a sad, new low for Columbia; we've become the ash heap of which Reagan spoke, as all the remaining Marxists flood academia, nay, Columbia. Regardless, it's the placement of a Marxist ideologue in a position of power that ultimately weakens the University. Columbia will both disenfranchise those who suffered from the abolition of the meritocracy (think white and Asian males) and those minorities and women with conservative or libertarian beliefs. This is the epitome of sham diversity.

Let's assume that President Bollinger, in all his Robert Redfordesque splendor, invented a time machine. As part of his endless quest to one-up Larry Summers, President Bollinger decides to travel through the past, recruiting history's great thinkers to teach at Columbia. Foner, Sachs, and Brinkley in tow, the Academic A-Team sets off to visit two men: Karl Marx and Edmund Burke. With the students clamoring for a new class, French Revolution 101, the University would make an exception and allow these two (dead) white, European, men to survive any of Howard's "diversity" requirements. So, which do we hire?

Clearly, both men are exceptional thinkers with a firm grasp on the historical period in question, yet their personal interpretations differ radically. Amazingly, in the eyes of Columbia, there is no difference between the two. According to history department chair Alice Kessler-Harris in her Letter to the Editor (9/16), "As to our hiring practices, we do not apply a political litmus test to any candidate." Political, however, does not infer partisan. Victor Davis Hanson, one of the nation's most well-respected conservative intellectuals and classical historian (currently teaching in California), is a registered Democrat. Conservativism isn't just a political ideology, it's a way to see the world (history included), much like liberalism.

Yet, with the appointment of Howard, the de facto monopoly on ideology will only strengthen.
As it stands, Marx gets the job. Under the banner of "liberalism," Marxists, feminists, sociologists, and gender studies disciples have fashioned their radicalism as the lenses of choice for colleges throughout the world. I don't care how a professor teaches their particular subject. I respect their right to academic freedom. But I also demand that the University respect mine. Students must have the ability to hear the dissenting scholarly arguments, from which not one lens is missing, but an entire field. Indeed, Professor Kessler-Harris, there are many varied political views in the history department, but is there one conservative?

There is no denying that conservative views are the minority in this faculty; frankly, I doubt there will ever be an ideological balance, but the greatest wrong will always come from inaction. How long do we have to wait before the administration institutes the same mechanisms they developed for minorities and women? Will we stop championing superficial differences over ideological ones?

Will we realize that the most diverse faculty in the world is useless if everyone says the same thing? Without a doubt, Professor Kessler-Harris, the Columbia/Barnard history department is one of the best in the world; the faculty is consistently open to new ideas and does its best to teach with a scholarly indifference. Truthfully, however, wouldn't the inclusion of conservative thinking only further cement our reputation for constructive diversity and foster dialogue as much as, if not more than, a new woman or minority with already well-represented views?