Is Masters diverse when it comes to political opinion? This question has been stewing quite a bit this year—and with the increasingly political tone that our Morning Meetings now take (think Ms. Merrill’s factory farming presentation, or Sherman Goldblum’s piece on the death penalty) many students would argue that Masters can be very one-sided when it comes to political representation.

There are doubtless many outspoken, politically-minded students at Masters—but how many students harbor right-wing ideals, yet are afraid to express them? How many feel silenced when their ideals are seen as bedfellows of bigotry?

When Frank Brodhead came in on December 15^th, I was somewhat miffed by his characterization of the right wing—of it being Islamophobic, and for using Donald Trump’s comments to generalize the American right wing, despite other Republican candidates’ disavowal of Trump’s bigotry. It seems that we here at Masters are only hearing one side of many of political issues—and if Masters is truly liberal, shouldn’t it represent all viewpoints?

Oftentimes, we have religious people inform us about their beliefs during Matters of Spirit—but why not have an atheist come in to talk about being spiritual without a belief in God? Why not allow social conservatives as well as progressives to come speak? I certainly wouldn’t agree with a social conservative, but I would still appreciate their arguments and could still possibly change my stances on issues. Why not have a thriving, liberal market of ideas? Why not have contrary views expressed more often?

When Sherman Goldblum spoke about his view on the death penalty, I did not at all agree with his views—however, I can appreciate the discussions that it ignited. Masters is a progressive school—but what is more progressive than discussing both sides of every issue?