Okay, okay, I have no idea why I am still await, and even less idea why I am reading Jason Pesick's editorial entitled, "Please give liberals back liberalism." The piece starts with some valid points about the roots of BAMN and immediately problematizes some of their tactics, but soon there after Pesick loses me. First, may I suggest that Pesick, nor anyone at the Daily invoke the Black Student Union's name, in defense of your issues with a group. I doubt that you are fully aware of the history, and including the BSU name will not offer you a cloak of amnesty from being a racist. Actions define racism, not affiliations. But then again ... The first thing Jason has to realize is that "liberalism" is not a static ideology. I'm sorry, but liberalism can not be quaintly defined as, "A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority." Being liberal is a relative ideological positioning, if the center shifts, so does liberalism. With that said, at some point, the terms Marxist and Communist will cease to scare people. Wow, attempting to enact a code that limits the proliferation of symbols of hate in times of heated racial tension, boy of boy, you might as well be a conservative ... oh wait, don't they want less government intervention? I'm so confused, was that liberal or conservative? It's a game of semantics. If you don't like Bamn's tactics, then suggest alternatives. Last year, SSAA was really successful at doing this. Oh wait, maybe liberalism comes from sitting behind a desk at the Daily writing editorials.