Some would argue that a healthy tension between the student body and a university administration, embodied through an active student union, student government, and campus clubs, is necessary to keep intellectual and political debate rigorous. However, when professors start to pierce that veil of objectivity representing part of the college administration and leave their teaching role to further a political aim, students are done a disservice.

The conservative think tanks and institutions are busily configuring lesson plans, compilations of texts, and other educational materials to make it easier for professors with conservative leanings to pressure students into learning a certain version of events.

So, I was going to wait until the end of the day to put up another blog about the Leadership Academy retreat in Connecticut. But this conversation is too interesting to me not to document and post right away: Fellows are debating Young People For's place on the ideology spectrum. The spectrum, most simplistically interpreted, is plotted this way (Left to Right): Radical, Systemic, Liberal, Neo Liberal, Conservative, Far Right.

This is the first in a series of posts that myself and other YP4 staff will write from the Leadership Academy retreat in West Cornwall, CT.

The 2008-2009 class met yesterday at Grand Central Station and we kicked off this four day training retreat last night. This class is nothing short of spectacular. We have people from all areas of the country with vastly different theories of change, all with roughly the same vision for the world. Among the group we have elected officials and candidates, ED's of organizations, community organizers, policy specialists, leadership development trainers, students, teachers and activists.

Ideology 101 in 2008

Political thought in the United States can't just be divided into two camps — us vs. them, left vs. right, progressive vs. conservative — it's much more complicated than that. There are actually a variety of progressive viewpoints on the economy, foreign policy and values — and they often contradict one another.

Throughout history many banners have flown in the name of freedom, many different colors and styles spurred movements on to revolution and victory. From the Star Spangled Banner of the American Revolution to the red banners in the streets of China to the political banners of modern times. These streaming bits of cloth are more than physical symbols born by flag bearers. These banners are accompanied by boxes of thought and explicit doctrines of belief. We rally around banners, they lead us to freedom, they lead us to liberty, and they lead us to justice. But this what the banners of the past have lead us to today? We are now forced to rally behind one banner or another, we are forced to make a choice, we are forced to fight for freedom with conditions - yet freedom is unconditional.

Ahh, race. That darling social construct in the eye of the storm. That three-dimensional issue viewed with a one-dimensional lens.

Nowhere is this phenomenon more evident than in the press coverage of Bill Cosby's and Alvin Poussaint's recently released book, Come on, People: On the Path from Victims to Victors.

The book's title says it all. The black community is just as responsible for its own empowerment as broader society is for the removal of imposted, racist barriers. Re-connecting with family, living a healthy life and staying away from crime must go hand-in-hand with the larger fight against institutionalized discrimination.

Not too controversial, is it? Well, yes and no.

You see, we live in a land called America, in which people pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. In which class doesn't exist. In which race has no connotation other than skin tone, and racism is nothing more than individuals acting rudely towards other individuals.

Read more below.