When it comes to the knowing what it means to be liberal, to support social justice and to be open-minded, Brandeis is a truly confused campus. The Kraft referendum of 2002, when the student body narrowly defeated a proposal which would have forced the entire student body to boycott Kraft products by removing them from the C-store, is one such example of the narrow-mindedness that has recently invaded our campus.

In the name of social justice, these students refused to eat Kraft. But they also forced everyone who happened not to agree with their views to do the same (also, I wager they weren't willing themselves to consciously avoid Kraft products and needed Aramark to do it for them).

They were afraid that the handful of people who were in favor of avoiding Kraft products would not be enough to make the statement they wanted to make and tried to drag the entire campus into their fight.

It is ironic that these socially conscious students tried to impose their will on the entire campus. Last time I checked, part of being liberal is not only accepting the fact that others have different beliefs, but also attempting not to impose your beliefs on them. It's true that a handful of students boycotting Kraft do not make as big of an impact as Brandeis getting rid of Kraft entirely, but such a boycott should be done willingly by students persuaded that it's the right thing to do

So why drag out an issue as old as the Kraft referendum? Because this was probably the only instance I could mention it without offending people. Though I am not averse to offending people-- just like I am not averse to being offended--I thought I'd avoid it for at least a few paragraphs. But to relate this to more recent campus events, it is sufficient to say that instead of trying to compel students to view certain humor or language as offensive, one must engage them in a dialogue to explain why it is offensive. This is done in the hopes that they come to a realization themselves that it is so. If they don't, then it's something we have to accept as subscribers to a liberal ideology.

There seems to be a prevailing idea on this campus that being open-minded means listening to only one prevailing opinion. I often hear students accused of being narrow-minded for not listening to someone else's point of view, yet the person who is making this accusation refuses to acknowledge that others may view things differently from him. Instead of forcing others to listen to our view, it is more productive to practice what we preach.

Its one thing to say we are truly accepting of different opinions. In truth, however, this requires us to be able to listen to something truly offensive and realize that the person is just as right as anyone else in expressing himself.

A claim heard all too often on campus is the liberal cry about dissent being someone's right. That it is. Obviously those who are dissenting think they have the correct view. It is, thus, no surprise that when those who only subscribe to liberalism when it suits them become a majority, they try to stifle all dissent themselves-as was the case with the anti-Iraq-war protesters at Brandeis trying to silence all those supporting the war by proposing such actions as a hostile takeover of the United We Stand club. Who can blame them though? They thought they were right and logically, in their heads, those who opposed their point of view were wrong.

Though crying foul when you are the minority being silenced and then silencing the minority after gaining a position of power is hypocritical, this is not evident to many students. Even those who understand this often make the wrong argument when defending someone's speech.

Often when making a freedom of speech argument on campus people invoke the first amendment as the basis for their argument. They say, "Well the first amendment guarantees free speech and, thus, we should have it here, as well." This in itself is a flawed argument since the Constitution was designed to protect the people from government, especially the first amendment, and not from each other or from universities and their students setting appropriate standards of behavior-as many private organizations rightly do.

Yet, as flawed as the Constitutional rationale is, the idea of allowing all points of view and all types of speech on campus is a matter of sticking to principles. Brandeis prides itself in supporting social justice, yet it seems the ideal of social justice has been hijacked by the far left (at least at Brandeis) just as the idea of "un-American" has been hijacked by the far right. The reason we should subscribe to the belief that every community member deserves a voice on campus is the belief in open discourse and in hearing all possible sides to a story.

After all, social justice means the (equal) distribution of advantages and disadvantages within a society and by giving only certain students the advantage of a voice on campus; we are violating a value which Brandeis touts as a core founding principle.

So a warning to freshmen when it comes to being open-minded: You may choose not to be, and that's your right, but before you too are caught in the Brandeis rush to silence the next offensive column or radio show, remember this: the Brandeis crowd is just like those alien spiders in Lost In Space that pounce on their wounded and eat them alive instead of trying to heal them. Right now you may be doing the eating by silencing someone who espouses rhetoric offensive to you, but soon enough you too may falter in this ever increasing politically correct environment, and then you will become the prey.