Responding to recent confusion related to identity politics in the opinion piece “Your own lens,” we have three points to address. The first regards the question, “Are [people who vote Republican against the political interests of their own groups] protecting yourself at their expense?” You don’t have to ask this. Only people with enough class privilege ignore the plights of their own identity groups to curry favor with their more powerful oppressors. Asking questions to make this topic appear debatable is a cop-out. Face how negative such behavior is for marginalized identities.

The second regards the statement: “… consider how [non-conservatives] allow buzzwords like ‘diversity’ to infiltrate your politics.” Please clarify. The word “infiltrate” implies diversity is unnecessary or out of place, like an invasion. Be realistic. Numerous studies demonstrate that both enforced and voluntary diversity is integral for reducing prejudice. Please see: “The effect of university roommate contact on ethnic attitudes and behavior” by C. Van Laar, S. Levin, S. Sinclair and J. Sidanius.

The third is about the question: “Are [non-conservatives] willing to fight for others as hard as you fight for yourself, even if they aren’t willing to fight for you?” No. Your ironic, presumptuous “both sides” standpoint throughout your article completely ignores a basic fact of identity politics: for non-privileged groups, including people of color and LGBTQ+ individuals, defending those who actively threaten us would be an offense to our existence. Many of us do not have the privilege of considering such a question.

The nature of your claims ignores that sometimes there are no sides to consider in identity politics. There is either the aim of equal treatment or remaining disenfranchised.

STEVE BLANCO is a sophomore in Benjamin Franklin College. Contact him at .