Ask yourselves, what would you do if Columbia College inserted the following political requirement in its admissions and evaluations process? "Standard four: Patriotism. Our candidates are familiar with legal, ethical, and policy issues. They provide leadership in advocating American ideals, interests, and foreign policy in a variety of professional, political, and policy-making contexts."

Would you simply yield the point, placing your faith in the administration's "better judgment" and vague wording to measure your patriotism? Knowing our fellow Columbians as well as we do, the great majority of students take issue with the blatant imposition of ideological standards. Fortunately, I made up the above example. Teachers College, however, does have similarly inappropriate standards.

There are, by the administration's own admission, five Teachers College "Standards" that provide "context for developing and assessing candidates' proficiencies" in their "Conceptual Framework." The last one reads: "Advocates of Social Justice and Diversity: Our candidates are familiar with legal, ethical, and policy issues. They provide leadership in advocating for children, families, and themselves in a variety of professional, political, and policy-making contexts."

Such brazen statements transcend pedagogy, or the science of teaching, and delve into the realm of the ideological and political. "Social Justice," a term encumbered by political philosophy, is the epitome of progressive dogma. With few exceptions, you know with great certainty the political leanings of any organization with "Social Justice" or "Common Good" in its platform. Couple the prolific and partisan use of the term with the weighted words "Diversity" and "policy-making," and one quickly realizes that the phrase is nowhere near as vague as the Teachers College administration would have it appear to be.

Even as a stand-alone idiom, the term "Social Justice" makes three fundamental and indisputably ideological assumptions. First, the object of analysis is not the individual but "society" as some indistinguishable whole. Second, the inclusion of "Justice" presumes some preexisting degree of injustice. Third, as an inherently active term, it not only evokes a blanket criticism of society but also suggests the need for righteous change, a notion solidified by the Teachers College's "advocate" requirement. All three points conflict with fundamental conservative theory, where individuals serve as socio-economic actors and where wholesale condemnations of society and calls for policy change preface the slippery slope toward big government. "Envy plus Rhetoric," muses iconic conservative economist, Thomas Sowell A.M. '59, "equals Social Justice."

Teachers College President Susan Fuhrman would, of course, disagree. In her rebuttal to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a non-partisan, free-speech watchdog group that brought the issue to light, she contends, "We teach a concern for social justice, but do not legislate a vision of what social justice is." The administration responded to the bad publicity by reducing the entire issue to the most non-descript, apolitical, and purposefully vague interpretation of social justice possible. Even if we give both President Fuhrman and the historically progressive Teachers College the benefit of the doubt and accept their argument, we still must ask ourselves, if you cannot define "social justice" satisfactorily, why make it a criterion? Perhaps most insulting, why, of all schools, does Teachers College judge its students by their commitment to "society"? Whatever their personal motivations, these students are pursuing a career in education! Whether they desire to change the world or feel a personal obligation to their community, no abstract rubric can adequately measure the students' contributions as educators-regardless of their political lobbying skills.

Do liberals, moderates, and conservatives have their own individual conceptions of a just society? Of course they do. Frankly, this fundamental consideration has and will continue to profoundly shape both the national debate and dialogue. We must remember, however, that "Social Justice" reaffirmed "in a variety of professional, political, and policy-making contexts" is not an open debate on the nature of justice and society. It is an overtly political and ideological reference.

Those who find themselves in opposition to these institutionalized standards effectively fail in the eyes of the institution. Still, though the policy was codified only last year, the administration offers a baffling amount of support for this undeniably problematic "Conceptual Framework." If students and watchdog groups actively take issue with the policy, why the unwavering defense of a term that administrators can't even define? A community service requirement, for example, would serve as a perfect middle ground. It both removes the loaded language and upholds the core philosophy of Teachers College.

Enough with the double standards. A "patriotism" requirement-however worded-would never fly, nor, for that matter, should this mandated commitment to "Social Justice and Diversity." Columbia must remove these loaded terms and uphold the free speech and free exchange of ideas that the administration professes to support. With University President Lee Bollinger's impressive resume as a leading First Amendment scholar, he must be held accountable for these monthly controversies and flagrant free speech violations.