This letter is a response to George Shur’s comments as quoted in The Northern Star of April 10.

Mr. Shur you cannot, as you say, make this campus “a pretty uncomfortable place” for persons who express offensive opinions without violating both the letter of American law and the spirit of an open society. Any such attempt undertaken in objection to the content of speech would constitute a blatant harassment of the targeted individual by an agent of this university.

Do non-violent attempts by residents of certain neighborhoods to make blacks or gays “uncomfortable” there constitute discrimination? If so, why do actions undertaken on behalf of this university by you and others in response to mere speech not constitute discrimination against whatever larger group in society might hold opinions expressed?

Many people in society at large hold the opinion which the enlightened souls who run this institution might find vulgar. Are you not forcing all such persons to either forgo the benefits of attendance at this tax-funded institution or else go into a sort of closet about their beliefs in order to avoid constant harassment?

I find it terribly sad and more than a little bit frightening that you don’t feel at all “uncomfortable” admitting in print that making this campus “a pretty uncomfortable place” for people whose opinions are unpopular is official policy under John La Tourette’s administration.

In essence, Mr. Shur, what you have said is that you engage in harassment in order to end harassment and viciously discriminate in the name of ending discrimination.

I can never decide if you administration types are truly sinister or just deeply confused.

Michael Roberts

Graduate student

Educational Psychology