Remember when you were a little kid, and you used to get in arguments with the bullies on the block? You used to say, “Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.”

You would sometimes go crying into your house and mom would say, “Just ignore it.”

Yikes, this is not the case at all. At least not at the University of Wisconsin.

The school’s Board of Regents voted to adopt a rule that would mean expulsion for any student who makes a statement which is derogatory toward any race, religion, national origin, sex, disability or sexual orientation (preference).

Well, the idea of deterring derogatory remarks is, of course honorable and important. But this new rule is full of more holes than swiss cheese.

Regent Ody J. Fish put it best when he said, “The goals are laudable, but the cure is worse than the disease.”

It sort of reminds me of the time when doctors would alleviate their patients’ headaches by drilling holes in their heads. This certainly cures the pain.

But as for the problem, it still exists. Racial tensions today for the most part are not inherent; rather, they result from a lack of education.

It’s ironic that an educational institution is dealing with this problem in such a judicial way. The university is only shifting the problem, not solving it by educating people.

So in other words, the university is saying, “If you’re going to make an offensive statement you just can’t do it at our school.” After all, think of the school’s reputation. They are.

Which brings up another question, why are the Regents doing this? Obviously, not for the benefit of mankind. If that were the case, they would be more concerned educating their students.

The University of Wisconsin is very concerned about its reputation, i.e. getting more students, i.e. MONEY.

Well, now that’s a good, concerned Board of Regents. Just wipe out all the racists and everything will be fine.

Now, that’s something to be proud of.

And by the way, just how do you define the word “demeaning” and interpret what falls into that category? Since religion and sexual preferences often contradict, who would be the the guilty party in an argument about this controversial subject?

Some good ‘ole churchgoers ream homosexuals up one side and down the other and vice versa. And the good old Brother Jed types, what about them?

Does this rule mean no poking fun at or criticizing the Bible thumpers who regularly visit campus and “evangelize?” Will they be allowed to visit campus and call the girls “whores” and the gays “sinners?”

Gee, do we really want to take away from all that fun and entertainment? After all, no one has to listen to them. But usually everyone does for a good laugh.

Will anyone be able to say anything without the fear of being expelled?

This of course brings in the obvious argument: the First Amendment. The supreme court has ruled that “fighting words” are not protected by the First Amendment.

I love it. What exactly are fighting words? The Ayatollah Khomeini thinks “Satanic Verses” is a book of fighting words.

Now, if it’s demeaning for a Christian to hear someone say “God Damn,” or “Jesus F. Christ,” does this apply to the rule?

The burden of proof in these cases will be on those who are offended, and just about everyone is offended by something or other.

I think the University of Wisconsin had better clarify and rethink this rule. I hope these Wisconsin Regents haven’t given NIU any ideas, or we’ll all have to watch our filthy mouths.

I guess mom was wrong. Sticks and stones don’t really break my bones, and names will definitely hurt me.