Cornell has just accepted a $50,000 grant from a conservative group called the Veritas Fund for Higher Education. The fund, created by the conservative Manhattan Institute, seems to be a convoluted and misguided attempt to assert the voice of a group that, according to its creators, has gone underappreciated for forty years: white conservative men. I don’t really know where to begin with this, so I will start by urging you, reader, to look into it thoroughly and decide what you think. Then, if you’re up to it, let everyone else in on your opinion.

Although the Veritas Fund presents itself as non-partisan, it is primarily endorsed by conservative groups, and promotes conservative professors. So although they’d like to appear apolitical, in practice they are conservative. Perhaps the Veritas Fund is here to attend to the anti-Republican atmosphere on campus. So why mince words? The Veritas Fund wants to bring conservatism back to liberal campuses by financing professors who espouse a traditional curriculum. But Cornell should not accept money from an institution that could politically bias education, no matter the institution’s politics.

The Veritas Fund apparently sees itself as responding to widespread student radicalism on Cornell’s campus. According to its literature, it provides “an alternative to radicalism.” Obviously, they don’t know what radicalism is, or don’t know what Cornell is — or both. They cite the Willard Straight Hall takeover in 1969 as the beginning of a radicalism that has reigned at Cornell until today. Signs of this so-called lasting radicalism are courses that address race, gender, and postmodernism. But the Veritas people are confused. The takeover of Willard Straight Hall was indeed a radical act, the purpose of which was to call for a change to the university’s approach to race. The consequence of it today — the existence of the Africana Studies department — is not radical. Aside from miniscule pockets of what might be considered radicalism, there is nothing radical about Cornell.

Cornell, Republican-hating aside, is in fact a good representation of the narrowness of U.S. politics. The students at the University of Buenos Aires would laugh at the small scope of our political sphere. In fact they did laugh at me, many times, when I would refer to Democrats as left-wing. In Argentina, left means Marxist. And that’s not even considered radical. At Cornell, the closest most students have gotten to political action is being a captain for Team Obama. They play right into the big picture — a two-party Democracy, with virtually no nuance in the political choices it offers. That’s about as radical as a short skirt at a DG crush party. So guess again, Veritas: Cornell is not radical.

The Manhattan Institute tsk-tsks universities that say they promote diversity but in doing so, diminish the number of courses on traditional Western (i.e. white conservative male) thought. Well yes, offering a thorough range of topics means that the dominant focus of the last few centuries cannot dominate anymore. Traditional teaching crowded out other perspectives. So the old curriculum had to make room so that new ideas could gain ground. That is the real meaning of intellectual pluralism. That is what it takes to move forward, to progress toward something better.

On Monday, the Sun quoted the executive director of the Veritas Fund, David DeRosiers, saying, “... the winds of the University are changing. I don’t think for young students the old songs ring true anymore ... let’s have a marked return to the real soul of the University. Not indoctrination, but instruction.” But who’s doing the indoctrinating here? His proof that students are tired of silly old race, class, and gender is Professor Barry Strauss’ willingness to work with him. He doesn’t mention any students, although I bet they’d be on board too if they could get some money out of it. Looks like DeRosiers is hoping for more of a top-down change of the winds — sort of like indoctrination. Strauss, to his credit, isn’t so hot to condone the statements of the Veritas Fund. In the same article, he protests against many of their points. I don’t blame him; they sound downright foolish.

Beyond that, it is insulting to say courses on race and gender are old hat, as DeRosiers (no relation to Simple Plan bassist David Desrosiers) suggests. In Cornell’s 143-year existence, Africana Studies has been around for only 39 years, and Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies just 36. These departments were necessary because traditional curriculum left them out, and in so doing, ignored a large portion of reality. In another quote, DeRosiers calls courses on race, gender, and class representative of a “partial view of reality.” But these ideas are comparatively new alongside the many courses offered on traditional Western thought, and have still not taken the precedence they are due to truly complete a view of reality.

Considering the narrow-minded aims of the Veritas Fund, it’s incredible that its spokespeople spend so much time talking about intellectual diversity. And it’s disheartening that Cornell is meekly taking their money. Students should not face unfair opposition in the classroom because of their background or beliefs. A straight man in a FGSS class, or a white person in an Africana Studies class provides valuable insight. But it’s important to remember that when dealing with issues close to a person’s identity, and sometimes their very view of reality, differing opinion can sound like personal attack. It is hard to read about oppression of which you have been an unknowing participant. Part of Liberal Arts education is reassessing your most deeply held beliefs, which can be a struggle. It would be unwise to respond to that struggle by accusing the people (professors who teach race, gender, and class issues) who presented it to you. Unfortunately, it is that sentiment that the Veritas Fund seems to further.

Jane Riccobono is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be contacted at jpr42@cornell.edu Crazy Jane appears alternate Wednesdays.