On “It’s wrong to hold morally repugnant values. It’s also wrong to date someone who does.”

This article discusses performative activism and says an individual’s dating life should reflect their moral and political stances. While I agree that for many, political beliefs are an important factor when choosing romantic partners, for others, it is not the deciding element. I find this piece vilifies those who don’t conform to this notion — an idea that is childish at best and malicious at worst. The author’s calls for evaluating people based on their political views excludes any other defining characteristics or facets of people’s lives.

I find this article to mirror the tribal thinking that seems to have invaded American politics in the past decade, leaving no room for nuance, thought or honest intellectual debate. In a way, this is the return of the Leninist line of thought, which proclaims a person can only have a socialist or a bourgeois ideology. It appears that members of the liberal tribe have taken it upon themselves to commence a long and grand Gramscian march through the institutions, starting with academia, inching their way toward people’s private lives. It is disheartening to see liberal thought — which I believe emphasizes ideals of tolerance, liberty and acceptance — caricatured into peer-pressured “purity” tests that measure your “worth” in the tribe. This descent into a “holier-than-thou” rabbit hole will only end up with a “No true Scotsman” realization.

At a time when President Joe Biden is calling for healing and unity, articles like this that call for more division are a huge disappointment.

Shishira R. Maiya

Graduate Student, Department of Computer Science

Letters to the Editor
The Diamondback accepts letters to the editor that are fewer than 300 words and relate directly to an article or opinion column we have published in the last two weeks. We do not accept open letters or pieces that have been submitted elsewhere. Please email submissions to opinionumdbk@gmail.com with your full name and affiliation to the university or the city.

CLARIFICATION: This piece previously contained an outdated version of this letter. It has been updated to better reflect Shishira R. Maiya’s views.