To the Editor:
I am deeply distressed by the coverage of the Busch Student Center-Rainbow Alliance incident. I’ll not bother recapping the events, of which, no doubt, all of your readers are aware. I will, however, comment on a few of the journalistic practices of the paper and do my best to attempt to leave my personal opinions out of this.
Thus far, I have read nothing in support of the professor in question. While the fact that his name has not been printed may make this harder, I do find it unlikely that no one has submitted anything philosophically in favor of his argument.
Then again, how could one, in conscience, support what you have described as a hate crime? The definition of a hate crime is something that is, no doubt, under significant dispute. But let’s, for the sake of argument, presume that it includes hate speech. And let’s go ahead and define hate speech as a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, moral or political views, etc. This is how Wikipedia defines it, and I feel fairly confident stating that this is not a resource known for overly conservative definitions. Upon analysis of that definition, however, your paper could be accused of the same, in its attack of the professor for his religious/political/moral/philosophical views. While I certainly do not accuse you of this, I think that it is time for you to consider some things about diversity.
Diversity is not a one-way street. Tolerance includes tolerance of the intolerant. While it is an unhappy thing for many of us to accept, we do not have any great moral superiority simply because we were born more recently than someone else or because we grew up without the belief that anything is absolutely true (except, of course, those things that everyone else thinks are absolutely wrong).
Further, I believe that the paper should do some fact-checking. Some of the information printed has been expressed as patently false. If this is the case, the paper has a fundamental responsibility to print all needed retractions. As a word of warning, freedom of the press does not protect libel.

Respectfully,

Frank Semmelmayer
Senior, Parks College of Engineering, Avation and Technology