Colleen Buhrer stated the academic bill of rights will hamper

controversial class discussions and make professors feel like they

can’t do their jobs effectively or have the right to freedom of

speech. I disagree. Through my research about bias on college

campuses I discovered interesting statistics.

In the social science department at the University of

Colorado-Boulder, 94 percent of the professors identified

themselves as liberal and 98 percent at DU! Being liberal isn’t

wrong and neither is hiring a liberal professor. Students are there

to learn, if they are forced to hear one opinion on topics, they

aren’t truly getting the whole picture.

This bill isn’t eliminating class discussion, it’s making it

unbiased, which makes perfect sense. In fact it promotes class

discussion on controversial issues and students are more likely to

participate in class discussions.

According to Buhrer, if this bill was to be passed and another

Sept.11, 2001, happens, discussion in the classroom wouldn’t

happen. Clearly an ignorant statement! It would be discussed, it’s

history and in our textbooks, why wouldn’t we be able to discuss

it?

It’s incorrect to assume that professors wouldn’t be able to

fulfill their duty or verbal rights as a result of the bill.

Knowing where the professor is coming from, we are able to separate

bias from facts. Isn’t college about finding what we believe and

where we stand in the world?

Amy Aldridge

Freshman, business

I am writing in response to Joe Marshall’s article “CIA intel

errors in Iraq are inexcusable.” Mr. Marshall wrote an article

peppered with half-truths and gross errors. First, he states “the

United States hasn’t found so much as a moldy jock strap in

Iraq.” While they may have not found the soiled undergarment he

was hoping for, they have managed to find new biological agents

such as Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever.

They have also found continued work in Ricin and Aflatoxin,

materials hidden from United Nations Inspectors. Plans for

designing missiles that would travel 1,000 km, well beyond the 150

km limit set by the United Nations. The list goes on and on. I fail

to see how Saddam was bluffing about his weapons. I suggest Mr.

Marshall reads up on the Iraq Survey Group. Mr. Marshall was

correct in saying that we have been at war with Saddam since 1991.

We were at war with Iraq because Saddam’s failure to comply with 17

United Nations Security Council Resolutions dating back to UNSCR

678 in 1990. I also see that Mr. Marshall sees this as a very

simple situation, Saddam dismantled his weapons and we didn’t

believe him.

I find that entertaining because of the information that is

available for all to read and the testimony of my friends who were

over in Iraq. Their information agrees with that of the Iraq Survey

Group. But I am sure Mr. Marshall’s sources are a lot better than

mine.

Jesse R. Mallory

CSU Republicans

Co-Chair