As a self-styled conservative, which a forthcoming Pipe Dream column of mine will declare, I absolutely shudder at the Binghamton Review’s ostensible dominance of conservative thought on campus.

I am a conservative, I am greedy, I strongly oppose affirmative action based on race, social engineering makes me sick, I am a fiscal zealot and I am generally unsympathetic and xenophobic — I don’t even like going to Jersey, for God’s sake. But the Binghamton Review editors are consumed by the absolute worst breed of reactionary, virulent “conservatism.”

This utter haughtiness emanating from a bunch of little, peevish and angry Jewish kids listening to country music is absolutely hilarious. The visual of a Binghamton Review editorial meeting causes me to break out into internal laughter. I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry when I was reading the chastising of Herbert Bix, arguably Binghamton’s most renowned professor. The enthusiasm with which the Binghamton Review snidely loathes people is really disturbing. By the time you are taking HIST 372 (20th Century Japan) you are at least a junior, and at least 20 years old. If the take-home message from one of Mr. Bix’s lectures at the age of 20 is to “hate America” and to blame white people for the fact that nobody likes you, your admission to Binghamton was probably a mistake.

The Review also contends that, in his book (which is actually quite good) many of his conclusions have been “debunked” by recent “findings.” Of course, being the spineless entity it is, the Review fails to mention any significant findings that may discredit any of the facts or theories presented in the book. Dr. Bix, like many professors, is a liberal under current standards, but he is not on some covert crusade to convert the masses. In fact, in the maybe 3 percent of the class time that is devoted to analogizing history to current events, he careful qualifies political statements with “I think” and “It appears to me.” His book also makes absolutely no excuses for the skewing of information and deceit (see page 432) used by the Japanese elites to justify aggression toward the US, something any Bush junkie could appreciate.

Yes, some teachers suck; they teach with indoctrination as their main goal rather than education. However, one might notice that every one of the teachers, with the exception of one or two listed on the BR’s “best and worst teachers,” were all in the departments of history, sociology or anthropology (the exception being English, and one peculiar accounting professor). Not one professor in the economics department is mentioned as a “best professor.” This is like complaining about finding worms in dirt. Not once was a professor from an apolitical field like economics, engineering or math, but last I checked the foundations of conservatism, property, enterprise and business were predicated on pragmatic subjects like these. The BR is conservatism at its worst — reactionary, gutless, poisonous and most disturbingly an unashamed exploitation of patriotism as a means to color those with whom Review disagrees as un-American. This type of “conservativism” makes me sick.

Lacking the gall to even sign off on the articles they write, the BR cynically uses the Founding Fathers as pseudonyms, as though to grant their articles some legitimacy. The Founding Fathers were incredibly well-reasoned and moderate philosophical men. One might even call them liberals of their time (bear in mind I am a conservative, but conservatives then were loyalists). It is an utter debasement of their legacies to sign off on BR diatribes with their names. Kristina Reintamm, a senior PPL and history major, takes issue with this as well, arguing that “no one will ever know how the Founding Fathers feel about the issues of today; using their names is not witty, clever or patriotic. It is, however, arrogant and tasteless.”

The Binghamton Review does not speak for conservatives on campus. The Republicans I hang out with are into business and don’t eschew iconic rock greats like Neil Young for country music “on principle.” They scoff at Fox News for the circus it is.

The BR does not have a monopoly on conservatism — or patriotism, for that matter. Not on this campus.

Joe C. Galante-Eisenberg is a junior economics major, and he uses Binghamton Review as toilet paper.