Perhaps we've been using the wrong set of metaphors here, and been too centred on ideologies that are offensive _to us_. I think Marcy's quite right that we have no business trying to "cure" a student, which really means imposing our own ideologies. For that matter, we have equally little business patting a student on the head for having the "right" ideology--that is, one that _does_ appeal to us. But there is a difference between being multiplistic--all ideologies are equal--and relativistic--there are competing ideologie (to use Perry's term). If the univerity is here for anything it's to make sure that students become critical thinkers, that they do not leave with "unopened baggage" to use Anthony's felicitous term. If we expose students' ideologies to critical scrutiny as part of showing them how to strengthen arguments, especially about minority opinions as Marcy suggests, we are not just showing them how to promote their ideologies better. (That's the business that got Plato's charater Gorgia into so much trouble with Socrates.) If they examine their positions in the light of others' positions they can't help coming away with a better understanding of both positions, and more importantly, of the critical tools needed to understand positions in general. Even the ideologies we approve of will have come through a healthy airing process. Well, maybe I overstate. "Can't help" presumes an mirculous educative climate in our classrooms. But maybe they are more likely to come out of a writing classroom with more critical understanding than most other sorts of classrooms.