“We reject a University that refuses to acknowledge the root of the problem — institutionalized oppression.”

— Zachary Murray ’11, quoted in “C.U. Minorities Stage Mock Funeral, Ask for Greater Univ. Support,” News, The Sun, April 3rd

I am not one who ever reliably toes the party line. So, imagine my surprise when I received an envelope bearing Sean Hannity’s name on the return address. Hannity, best known as the polarizing host of the appropriately-titled “Hannity,” sent out this four page form letter under the auspices of the DC-based Heritage Foundation. “Dear Mr. Bellin,” the letter began, “With the government in Washington wholly controlled by liberals, do you think conservative members of Congress have what it takes to block their disastrous policies?”

To be completely candid, I do not. Such, however, is beside the point, at least for my purposes. Indeed, Hannity’s letter proves most instructive for its reflection of a larger trend: namely, our propensity towards ideology.

Quite simply, the letter was an exercise in self-righteous self-gratification. Critiquing the misguided policies of both “politicians who call themselves conservative” and “leftists,” he urges the reader to “work for what we believe in” by donating to Heritage, an organization that will “take on the left.” Additionally, Hannity includes a survey addressing issues such as the economy, the courts and energy policy. He concludes by stating, “We are deeply interested in your opinions as a conservative who shares our values and principles.”

Does anyone doubt that Hannity already knows the results? The survey is tainted by grievous selection bias, as the only respondents will most certainly be those conservative enough to finish reading the letter; accordingly, we are guaranteed only the most conservative responses. A survey so obviously designed to elicit the desired responses cannot be said to be serving any constructive purpose. Indeed, the letter is nothing more than an ideological token.

The appeal of such ideological chauvinism is clear: ideology provides an unmoving anchor in the face of great complexity. It functions as an intellectual security blanket, providing easily accessible beliefs to those in need of guidance.

Oftentimes, however, the security blanket becomes a teleprompter. The danger of ideology is that it provides answers to questions that have not yet been asked. It exists a priori and thus has solutions already in place. In short, ideology is the ultimate crutch to difficult questions, the easiest “get out of jail free” card for complicated problems.

The ideological drive is nowhere more apparent than in the recent protests against the review of program housing. Only an ideologue could claim, as does Zachary Murray ’11, that minority students on campus are “oppressed” and that at core the University propagates “institutionalized oppression.” Such would also explain Jonathan Pomboza ’10’s claim, in the same Sun article, that Akwe:kon was a victim to “racist attitudes” and Gabrielle Boley ’10’s statement that “the University neglected Ujamaa in the face of constant attacks.”

These statements, hyperbolic at best, are notable for their brazen avoidance of the real question. In these trying economic times, everything must be reviewed for economic feasibility. As President Skorton stated, “program houses have to show enough interest to justify their expenses.” For these students, this is beside the point. It matters not to them whether one or 100 students join these houses; indeed, reality is irrelevant to the ideologue. The houses must stay open regardless of anything; their closure would be but yet another symptom of the University’s “institutionalized oppression.”

More astonishing is the admission by Murray and the co-authors of Friday’s op-ed that there actually is a “decreased interest” in program housing. However, this too is irrelevant in light of the “major stigma” associated with it by unsympathetic students, “neglect” by the university and the lack of real “racial diversity” on campus. In sum: the noted issue exists, but needs not be seriously addressed due to the external nature of its problems.

Certainly no one rejects the notion of safe spaces for minority students. However, that is not the University’s only concern. Consideration of other issues does not, as the protestors would claim, preclude an individualized assessment of their specific problem. Such a comprehensive assessment, however, is by every means challenging, and can be met only by broad-minded thinkers. The ideologue abandons that challenge, narrowing the scope of the world so that only he is of any significance.

Ideology, then, is inconsistent with community. We must therefore avoid its easy certainties in favor of accepting a more complex reality. Otherwise, we risk a presumptuousness as intellectually sophisticated as a teleprompter.