I gave a talk at Amherst College last night — courtesy of Young America’s Foundation. The crowd drew students from other local schools, including Hampshire and Smith Colleges, as well.

The audience even included one faculty member who — for the first time in my approximately three dozen campus visits — was respectful and engaged in sincere discourse. The behavior of his academic colleagues has ranged from embarassing tantrums (Wellesley) to storming out, while saying to a student on the way to the exit, “I’ll get him in class tomorrow” (Knox College).

Anyway, something in my conversation afterward with this chemistry instructor stuck with me, in the context of something a student said at the dinner that followed the event.

It seems that today is “Conservative Coming Out Day” at one of the aforementioned schools. As the students discussed this, a lesbian student told one of the conservatives, “I’ll support you on your Day if you support me on mine.” I was impressed by the relative open-mindedness, such as it was.

But, any conservative (or global-warming skeptic) with campus experience in the past decade or so – either as a speaker or student – knows that the struggle is over being tolerated, to be allowed equal or at least respectful treatment (though they can probably count on not being funded equally with left-wing campus groups), to openly participate without harassment. I have found that sometimes it’s a victory even to be allowed to speak. I was not aware that this was the current state of affairs for LBGT students – particularly at places like Smith and Amherst.

For conservatives, global-warming skeptics, and other politically unfashionable groups, the battle is most certainly not over is whether they will be celebrated or granted special privileges or status.

Which brings me to my post-talk sidebar with the chem professor. In my remarks, I had indicated that I am pro–nuclear power, but did not qualify the comment. He responded that, if I divorce myself from the economics and just support nukes, that’s just ideological and I should also say I’m pro-windmill. That’s moot, but what I mean is this: I’m pro-nuke, because it provides reliable, abundant energy, and I know that having ready access to power makes a huge difference in the quality of human life. I suppose I am equally pro-windmill, if you can overcome the phsyics and the obstacles designed to ensure they cannot be erected anywhere birds fly or Kennedys live (which you can’t).

But here’s the relevant nuance: The debate over nuclear power is, distilled, whether to allow it. The debate over windmills is whether to give them special treatment, to give them preferences as a matter of federal law — indeed, to mandate them.

Given that dynamic, yes, I’m pro-nuke, but not pro-wind — and there’s nothing inconsistent with that. The inconsistency is found in the “I’ll tolerate you if you celebrate me” line of thinking endemic to most debates in which the Left has set the ground rules.

– Chris Horner is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a best-selling author. His latest book is Power Grab: How Obama’s Green Policies Will Steal Your Freedom and Bankrupt America.