Earlier this month, the student paper at the University of Wisconsin-Superior printed a letter to the editor that condemned gays and lesbians for "advertising that they are queer." ìI say put them back into the damn closets they came from," the writer opeined. "Lock the door!î Shock ensued, and then a public forum to discuss homophobia on campus and to debate the newspaper's responsibility to communal sensitivities: some argued that the letter should never have been run, because it contains "hate speech" and was thereby a form of harassment; some argued that the newspaper should have edited the offensive passages out of the letter before publishing it; others argued that, as inflammatory and hurtful as the letter was, it's better to know the truth about how some people think than to try to whitewash their views. "In some ways, it's been helpful to have a letter like this appear because there's been quite an outpouring of students wanting to discuss it and act on it," said Dianna Hunter, faculty coordinator of the Queer and Allied Student Union at UWS.

The letter was written in response to a front-page story about how several gay and lesbian students and faculty at UWS were sent "anti-homosexual brochures" last fall. The brochures were sent anonymously through campus mail; Hunter was one of the recipients. Hunter said the campus paper should have required the writer to "take out some of the hate speech" before printing it, adding that in her view, the letter "violates our discrimination and harassment policy."

To his credit, UWS Chancellor Julius E. Erlenbach disagreed, stating unequivocally there had been no violation of university policy. Not to his credit, Erlenbach cushioned his message by suggesting that not all speech is free: "we all [need to] get to a point where we can determine where freedom of speech may cross the line and become harassment," he said, adding that the campus forum would mark the beginning of his campus' hubristic attempt to define where that line is. Stating that "we clearly have an issue here where we have a member of the university community that is espousing a view that's in direct conflict with our institutional values," Erlenbach stressed the difficulty of balancing free speech against those values, a statement that sounds disturbingly as if he does not see free speech as a value in itself, but merely a pesky legal requirement that tends to impede his ability to shape his campus into a model multicultural community.

Meanwhile, the paper's advisor has announced that it was wrong to run the letter: "The letter was not about discussion and debate," he said. "The views in the letter were inflammatory and discriminatory. ... It's a credit to the people in this community and the university that they took a very negative thing and turned it into a positive thing, to open the forum for talking about the issues of civil rights and free speech." The paper is now developing a policy to prevent such missives from seeing print in the future--all in the name of civil rights and free speech, you understand.

But all of this is so much rote behavior scripted by the diversity machine that is currently dominating higher education policy and setting the tone for campus culture. The people at UWS are responding with Pavlovian predictability to a typical stimulus; their reactions are not unique or original, but are instead a standard-issue response that matches in substance and form the responses of any number of other outraged students and conciliatory administrators on any number of other campuses.

Proof? The inability of UWS students, faculty, and administrators to make appropriate adjustments when their understanding of the facts is called into question. The woman whose name was signed to the offending letter, Kathleen Espersen, claims that she did not write it. She says her email account was hacked and that someone sent the letter in her name. Has this claim generated an equal concern for internet security on campus? Are public forums being held to discuss the university's commitment to electronic privacy? Has the seriousness of internet fraud been discussed? Has anyone made it clear that committing internet fraud is not consistent with the university's values? Has anyone proposed that the mistake the student paper made was not that it published the letter, but that it did not verify the authorship of the letter before publishing it? Of course not.

Espersen's claim has been downplayed to the point of suppression. Most coverage of the events at UWS does not mention it at all. One article that does report this aspect of the story merely mentions it in passing, treating it not as a serious allegation, but more as a wrinkle in the tale of Espersen's alleged homophobia, noting simply that "the UWS student the letter was attributed to has since denied writing it and said she's received threats since it appeared." Just as Espersen's denial goes uninvestigated, so does the nature of the threats she has received go unreported. The message is clear: any threats Espersen receives are not news. They are simply what she deserves.

Here's a wild hypothetical scenario: 1. Ms. Esperson did not, in fact, write the offending letter and her e-mail address/password, etc. was hacked. 2. Ms. Esperson was known to have rather conservative views or may have made the mistake of actually espousing those views in a public forum. 3. Ms. Esperson is therefore a perfect stooge for a little scam whereby 4) a Gay/Lesian student activist sends the letter thereby; 5) igniting a firsetorm or moral outrage and creating campus pressure for increased diversity awareness. etc.; 6) Ms. Esperson is attacked verbally and receives threatening e-mails, phone calls, etc. and 7) campus conservative groups are forced to take a lower profile as a result. But then word leaks about this little conspiracy and the following events occur: 1) the item is covered in the campus news and local media but not nearly to the extent of the original coverage of the gay-bashing letter; 2) the groups chide and criticize (mildly) the offending party; and 3) the party is put on probation or has a letter put in his or her file; but 4) the idelogical powers that be point out the importance of the lesson we have learned - not about how fakes and frauds demean the cause we seek to support by the fraud - but the "bigger picture" that the fake letter represents. In other words - we need to draw lessons in tolerance from the performance art - whether based on reality or not and we should not overlook the harms caused by hate crimes simply because it did not occur. Okay - now this may not be the case here so I do not present it as fact - but I do present it to see if anyone out there thinks this scenario is far fetched or paranoid? (If you think its just dumb - I will claim someone hacked into my e-mail.)Comments anyone? Regards, Ivan

To me, it reads like someone's idea of a joke, maybe hers and maybe a prankster friend who sent the email not realizing the furor it would cause. I can't imagine anyone who felt that way signing their own name. Then again, I can't imagine anyone joining the KKK either, so what do I know?

It's certainly possible that it was someone's specific goal to "prove" homophobia on campus. It's also possible she sent the email expressing her true feelings and now regrets it. We'll never know about this one because there is no impetus to determine the truth, unlike the assault at UVA.

On that issue, I must say I've never heard any victim of assault desire anything less than a full investigation. The UVA SCP candidate's comments to the effect that too much attention was being paid to her because of the incident runs counter to the concerns of most assault victims. Normally, victims seem primarily concerned that their attacker is caught. This makes me more suspicious of her claims.

She did, in fact, write the letter. That is incontrovertable. She recanted out of fear, which, while perhaps understandable smacks of an inability to stand behind one's purported convictions. You have made a mistake Miss O'Connor to blindly take the side of both a liar and a bigot. It is one thing to make a moral argument against homosexuality. It is entirely another to make the comment that homosexuals should all be put on a reservation or shoved back into the closet. If you want to say such hateful things, fine, be prepared for hateful responses. If Miss Espersen was simply excercising her First Amendment rights, then so are those who choose to respond to her comments with equal vitriol. A person can't have it both ways. One cannot expect to espouse the believe that certain individuals, on the grounds of their sexual preference, should be treated as less than human and then balk when they are treated in a similar fashion. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you...

Alex, I read your last post with some interest and wonder if you could fill in some gaps for me. I ask these questions for the purpose of allowing you the opportunity to influence my opinion of the matter. You write: "She did, in fact, write the letter." She very well might have written the letter but I think you need to advise how you, Alex, happen to be in a position to know this? Are you a student there? Exactly how did you obtain the knowledge that she did "in fact" write the letter? Curious. You go on to write: "That is incontrovertable." I suppose you meant to say incontrovertible and although you may have intentionally spelled the word incorrectly to induce us to believe that you are a college student I ask again: what knowledge, other than your belief that you wish it be so, do you have to support your assertion of this alleged incontrovertible fact? Next, you state, again with a tone implying unwavering certainty that "She recanted out of fear, which, while perhaps understandable smacks of an inability to stand behind one's purported convictions." Are you asserting her fear out of personal knowledge or making an assumption here? Further, the reports I read indicated a denial not a recantation. There is, I believe a difference in meaning and nuance here and wonder how you came to choose the word recant. Recant is most often used to apply to those who have strayed from received dogma (Koestler's Darkness at Noon is instructive here) and who wish to publicly acknowledge and atone for their ideological sins. Last time I checked a denial is simply that, a denial. I also question your use of the term purported to modify convictions. If your certainty in this matter is fact-based, exactly why would you minimize the impact of those convictions by calling them purported? Next you aver: "You have made a mistake Miss O'Connor to blindly take the side of both a liar and a bigot." Perhaps my reading comprehension skills are not as acute as yours. Perhaps you could assist me by pointing to those passages in the text where Ms. O'Connor blindly took Ms. Espersen's side? I see her calling for the investigation of her denial (not her recantation) but I cannot see where Ms.O'Connor asserts that Ms. Espersen did not, in fact, post the letter. This passage seems to imply that Ms O'Connor is somehow at fault for having the temerity to suggest that Ms. Espersen's denials be investigated? I cannot believe that was your intention as no reasonable person can plausibly maintain the view that ideology or gender politics is more important than objective truth . . . or can it? Next you write: "It is one thing to make a moral argument against homosexuality. It is entirely another to make the comment that homosexuals should all be put on a reservation or shoved back into the closet." I agree with the thrust your remark here to the extent it implies that you think there are circumstances where reasonable people could disagree on issues relating to sexual orientation (or anything else for that matter). My question for you, assuming you are a politically-active student at this particular campus (based upon your professed intimate knowledge of the facts) is simply this: Do you think a public debate on the morality, vel non, of homosexuality is possible on any campus in America? Seems to me one person's 'morality' may easily be viewed as someone else's hate speech whenever the offended party chooses to terminate the debate. Thanks in advance for clarifying this matter for me. Until then, I remain yours in the search for the truth, Ivan

I too read Mr. Troyís (perhaps Ms?) comments with some interest. Primarily because he is most correct in his assertion that Ms. Espersen did in fact write the letter, as well as then go on to deny having written it on the campus television station. My knowledge of this comes from a conversation I had with her yesterday when she contacted me in hopes that I would help to publicize how she has been victimized as a result of her statements denouncing the practice of homosexuality. She confessed quite plainly that she wrote the letter because she was sick and tired of seeing the homosexuals on campus holding hands and flaunting their lifestyles. She said that as a Christian she should not have to be subjected to such behavior. She also admitted that her subsequent denial was a result of the fear she felt after receiving large amounts of hate mail and even a few death threats. Ms. Espersen has children and feared for their safety.

I will admit I do not know for sure why the school didnít make more of an effort to investigate her claim that someone hacked into her computer system, however, I think it is a moot point since her claim is a false one. Perhaps Ms. O'connor would have done well to call Ms. Espersen and ask her if she wrote the letter before aggressively charging the school with negligence. She was quite willing to claim ownership when she spoke to me.

I often deal with students who feel that they are being persecuted for their conservative views on campus. I too during my very recent undergraduate experience felt the pressure of the incontestable liberal bias in higher education. I now work in a field that allows me to attempt to ameliorate the ideological disparities existing on college campuses by striving to promote free speech and open debate. However, I know both from talking with Ms. Espersen and from reading her letter that her intention was in no way to promote discourse on the subject of homosexuality but simply to express the view that a certain segment of the population is vile and ought to be quarantined (so to speak) so that the rest of us arenít subjected to ìtheir way of life.î As a conservative I am embarrassed and as a human being I am mortified. I will work tirelessly to ensure that student voices at colleges and universities are not silenced simply because the intelligencia doesnít want to hear them. However, I have little patience for those who make statements such as the one Ms. Espersen made and then whine and refuse to take responsibility because people are angry about it. I agree with Mr. Troy, Ms. Espersen has flexed her free speech muscle and now an outraged community will flex theirs. (This of course precludes death threats, which obviously do not fall into the free speech category.) SEL

Well, well, well, Ivan. Looks like I have been vindicated. You know, you or OíConnor, or whoever actually writes this column only defended that woman because youíll look for any excuse to let a bigot off the hook and turn things around and blame it on colleges bowing to the diversity godís. I mean, youíre right that political correctness is reaching a fevered pitch around here, but people reacting negatively to that womanís letter is not political correctness run rampant. Itís good people (for the most part) standing up and saying ìweíre going to let you know what we think of you talking about a whole group of people, people who are our friends, family members, and classmates, and who have never done anything to you, like they are dirt.î Itís people like yourselves and Espersen that make it impossible for the rest of us to win the battles that are worth winning on our campuses-- like establishing a core curriculum or keeping Western Civ classes. Every time someone like this woman opens her mouth and lets that garbage passing for free speech fly, she makes it that much more difficult for me to convince thinking moderates that conservatives arenít malevolent dogmatists.

Oh and by the way, thanks for the spelling and grammar lesson. Maybe though, and this is just a thought, if you spent more time getting your facts straight and less time dissecting and defining the words used in my response you might have something to say worth listening to. Peace