Hello Gusties! It seems that my favorite thing to write about lately is splashy, bigger topics. In the last column I wrote, I came out to all fifteen or so of my readers SPOILER ALERT saying: I’m gay.

Let me then preface the title with a description of what I am not doing: I am NOT agreeing with the positions Phil takes. Quite often I disagree with him vehemently, but understand the point he’s making. NOR am I agreeing with his methodology, which, as I wrote in an earlier column, was particularly ineffective.

With those two things in mind, let us continue to the portion sure to cause some Letters to the Editor: the defense of Phil Cleary.

Someone once told me that perception is reality. I disagree. Perception is what someone understands of reality. However, perception helps form interpretation, which shapes context. Perception, then, is critical to understanding the context in which everything exists. If my perception is off, then the context I live in is off.

Context influences how we act. To illustrate with a personal example, how comfortable I feel talking about being homosexual is quite different at Gustavus than at a gay bar, and both of those are quite different than when I went back to the church I grew up in a couple weeks ago. I am relatively comfortable talking about my sexuality at Gustavus, don’t hesitate whatsoever at a gay bar, and would never discuss it with the people at my former church because of the reaction I would get.

At Gustavus, the single biggest perception problem that I see is the perceived “liberality” of the campus—the view that Gustavus is overwhelmingly liberal. The actual numbers I’ve heard from various sources who like to track student perspectives is somewhere between 55/45 or 60/40 (liberal/conservative). However, in conversations I’ve had with people, many perceived that about 70 to 80 percent of students are liberal.

Because perception shapes context, people treat Gustavus as an effective bastion of liberalism, and the voice of liberals at Gustavus is much stronger for it. In the same way that I feel very comfortable talking about homosexuality at a gay bar, Gustavus Dems have no problem talking about liberal/progressive issues and concerns regularly. Conservative students, on the other hand, are less likely to be “openly conservative,” per se, or at least to engage in the campus conversation in the same way or without at least some hesitancy, because their perception of Gustavus is that they would be completely overwhelmed by the “other perspective.”

Enter Phil Cleary. There is no question that he makes his opinion heard on a variety of issues and topics, for better or worse. When he sees something he finds wrong, he speaks up. Not always in the best way, but I already addressed that. The point is, he asks the questions that liberals would never think of, and conservatives may not wish to bring up.

Last spring Phil asked the question: What does it mean for someone to be offended, and should speakers be disallowed from speaking because they’re “offensive?” If you think about it, people rarely agree on simple things—try to get 10 people to agree on whether puppies or kittens are cuter—let alone the complex issues. It’s a very valid question to ask!

This is where Phil’s value to the community lies: if nobody were to bring up “the other side,” then how would actual discourse and conversation happen? And without Phil, would anyone bring such things up? I don’t think so.

I’m not asking you to like him, his methods or his positions. But I do think that the campus as a whole would learn a lot to spend more time attacking his ideas, rather than Phil himself, and respect the good questions he asks of this community.