The Boston Globe Ideas section had two articles of note yesterday. First was a very short "interview" (three questions and answers) with conservative philosopher John Kekes of SUNY-Albany. Kekes replied to a question about the primacy of social justice: The belief that social justice is the most important political value is dangerous because its single-minded pursuit often makes it incompatible with the pursuit of other values -- freedom, prosperity, order, security, criminal justice, and so forth -- that are just as important. It is a dangerous mistake to privilege equality at the expense of everything else. Willmoore Kendall said likewise when asking Americans to read the Preamble carefully; it does not privilege in its list of purposes, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. Social justice (whatever that means) is but one of many.

Second, an alternatively hysterical and depressing article about the latest MLA conference in San Diego, where literature took a backseat to politics (how shocking). And when I say politics, I mean hatred of George Bush, the Iraq liberation, and the war on terrorism. If you thought by politics I meant pluralism or dialogue, shame on you. The article relates, In more than a dozen sessions on war-related topics, not a single speaker or audience member expressed support for the war in Iraq or in Afghanistan. The sneering air quotes were flying as speaker after speaker talked of "so-called terrorism," "the so-called homeland," "the so-called election of George Bush," and so forth.

All the expected po-mo silliness was on display: "shock and awe" as an imperial rhetorical strategy, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell as Aunt and Uncle Toms, Donald Rumsfeld as illiterate (ironic considering that most literary theory is unintelligible), and so on. They even voted by a wide margin to uphold their right to continue criticism of Bush and war, apparently fearing the Patriot Act was about to shut them down.

But there is redemption. The article concludes: The closest public challenge to the prevailing geopolitical views at the MLA came when one professor asked a panel that had derided American responses to 9/11 and Iraq what a good response would have looked like. She didn't get much of an answer, left the session, and declined to elaborate on her question.

But a young professor of English who followed her out the door to congratulate her did offer some thoughts on politics at the MLA. Aaron Santesso of the University of Nevada at Reno described himself as being "on the left" and sympathetic with much of the criticism of the war in Iraq. But he said that the tenor of the discussion "drives me nuts." "A lot of people here don't want the rhetoric to just be a shrill echo of the right," he said.

Just a few years ago, he noted, the Taliban was regularly attacked at MLA meetings for their treatment of women and likened to the American religious right. Now, there is only talk of how the United States has taken away the rights of the Afghan people.

Santesso said he gains a good perspective from his students, most of whom he characterized as "libertarian conservatives." Most of the debate at the MLA, he said, "would completely alienate my students."

Plenty of English professors share his views, Santesso said. And some of his colleagues are even conservative. They just avoid coming to the MLA.

Bully for them.