Open debate, not censorship, discredits hateful views

To the Daily:
I am writing in response to the Student Relations Advisory Committee's viewpoint (An open letter to the Daily, 02/03/2006). While I object to its arguments and excessive wordiness overall, I have specific objections to the committee's sixth point, which states, "there are indeed situations such as a newspaper dedicated to serving an entire campus community in which the abovementioned Fourteenth Amendment trumps the First. It is easy to hide behind the First Amendment; but invoking that right also requires the recognition of responsibility not to abuse it." It is likely that no example of this "trumping" was included in this otherwise lengthy letter because no relevant one exists. While there has been much controversy over the First and the Fourteenth Amendments, the courts have repeatedly decided that the First comes, well, first. That is why we see the Ku Klux Klan march openly and why hate sites exist without fear. However, it is also the reason we can guarantee the widest array of competing views in our society, and it ensures that we can express hostility toward the government without resorting to physical violence. It is this openness that makes hateful speech irrelevant today. The world's most open societies are also its least violent. Illogically hateful views have a hard time holding up to open debate and scrutiny, and it is imperative that these debates can exist freely. A campus paper at the University should be the last place to censor debate, and to demand it at this level is unnecessarily suppressive.

Sean Germaine
Business senior

Bollinger was an effective leader, not a 'spineless jerk'

To the Daily:
I was a bit disturbed by Prof. Robert Frost's comments about former University President Lee Bollinger (Lack of plan dooms wireless, 02/08/2006), apparently prompted by what Frost views as his "lack of leadership" on the deployment of a campuswide wireless network. Perhaps our wireless network isn't among the best in the country, but does this minor shortcoming merit such harsh criticism of Bollinger? I was an undergraduate at the University throughout most of Bollinger's tenure and can confidently say that on the whole, the University has benefited immensely from his leadership. Many of the expansion projects throughout the campus that are now nearing completion, such as the Life Sciences Institute and the Walgreen Drama Center, were initiated under Bollinger's leadership. Milestones achieved during Bollinger's presidency in various realms such as fundraising (the University raised more money from alumni than any other public university) and research (the University led all public universities in research expenditures) served to enhance the University's national reputation. And perhaps most importantly, Bollinger was critical in the University's successful defense of its affirmative action admission policies, an accomplishment with historic implications. Yet according to Frost, because Michigan lacks a centralized wireless network, "nothing got done" under Bollinger's leadership.

Though people are certainly free to criticize former leaders, Frost's remarks lack civility and ignore other aspects of Bollinger's tenure. Michigan has a rich tradition of leadership that is entitled to greater respect. Referring to a former University president as a "spineless jerk" who viewed his post as a "trophy job" is misguided at best and unprofessional at worst.

Sabir Ibrahim
Law School