My story starts like that of many other 24-year-old Bozeman immigrants. Last spring I was looking for a job.

I wanted to stay in Bozeman, be challenged to think, have the opportunity to write, and work with interesting, thoughtful people. So I sent letters and resumes to a number of Bozeman environmental nonprofits.

I approached the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE) with care. A classical liberal environmental group? Free market environmentalism? I thought those were oxymorons.... I perused the Internet trying to figure out FREE, finding far more vituperations than accolades. (The basic accusation is that FREE bribes and brainwashes federal judges at “educational” seminars.) I also contacted an environmental economist from Dartmouth to see what he knew.

I’m an East Coast girl. My friends are hikers, hippies, and artists, almost without exception critical of the political right. Meanwhile, I was in far-away Montana, about to interview with libertarian environmentalists.

During my interview, John Baden’s easy-going affect, directness, and easy laughter surprised me. He was straightforward about FREE’s controversial status; I felt comfortable stating my skepticism. Despite ideological differences, I sensed John could be an important mentor.

During my remaining interviews, I took the opportunity to ask what each nonprofit knew about FREE. Looking back, one of these discussions clinched my decision to work with FREE. I asked my interviewer what she knew about it. Her eyes widened and she shook her head at me. Her fingers in a fist, she jabbed her thumb downwards. “Don’t go work for them.”

“What do you know about them?” I asked. Not much, it turned out. She had only been in Bozeman for a year, and didn’t know any specifics. Just that FREE was bad.

In sum: lots of negative press, numerous Bozeman nonprofits who mistrust FREE, folks who don’t like FREE but don’t know why. And an excellent first impression of my own.

I saw a choice between a high-risk, high-potential-rewards opportunity, and a less challenging (less stimulating?) job. I have a habit of embracing experiential risks, assuming I’ll grow more from challenges than the status quo.

If I worked with FREE, I concluded, I could attend its seminars and form my own opinion. I’ve now attended three: one for environmental entrepreneurs, another for federal judges and law professors, and the third for state judges.

The program for federal judges and law professors was particularly impressive. Nothing in the sessions could even brush up against a definition of brainwashing. This seminar was not about politics. Rather, it applied a wide spectrum of viewpoints to discuss terrorism, energy, and the interface between them. There was much debate and considerable respectful disagreement. The week’s discussions were better than the most interesting and dynamic week of classes I attended during four years at Dartmouth.

I recently spoke with my mother, back on the East Coast. At a dinner she just attended, she sat next to a federal judge. My mother jumped on the opportunity to do a little of her own research on FREE, outside of my experience and her own interactions with the office.

Yes, of course the judge had heard of FREE. And no, she could never go to one of their conferences: they are far too controversial. But it was really a shame, she told my mother, because her colleagues had reported that they were really, really good.

The potential damage of a bad reputation is huge. FREE is stuck: many judges who hope to move up in rank won’t go to FREE conferences because of prohibitive political costs. I have no problem with deserved smears, but I do take issue with those that are untrue, and even worse, uninformed.

Self-segregation is easy and comfortable, but rarely is it optimally productive. John has told me that I’m more valuable to him as an editor than an RA with a conservative background, because I intuitively search for weaknesses in his argument.

My Bozeman friends often joke, “How are the conservatives?” (Translation: how’s work?) I happily report that I’m impressed. I don’t feel pressure to say anything I don’t believe; I would leave if I did. I’ve certainly encountered an unfamiliar set of arguments, but really, what better way to assess and develop my own ideas?