Isn’t it convenient that only days after The Collegian ran a

story about liberal graffiti on campus, the editorial staff has to

get the last word by bringing in a “guest columnist,” who is

obviously a liberal ideologue, to condemn the awful College

Republicans for their “Campus Insanity” campaign?

Kevin Foskin spews the left’s propaganda about the “creative,

(albeit irregular) gestures of self-expression we’re so blessed

with these days.” What a nice spin he puts on it. But I speculate

that if the liberal spin was taken out of his quote, it would sound

more like this. ” I think vandalizing the campus is OK as long as I

agree with the message the vandals are portraying.” Interesting.

But let not your heart be troubled friends, for Mr. Foskin is a

college (adjunct) professor. This grants him the right to

indoctrinate our learning minds with his slanted rhetoric, posing

it as fact.

But people with extreme, comical views are nothing new. Usually

we smile and nod at the crazy, fist-pumping hippie on the street

corner screaming about the latest facts twisted by Democracy Now!

or some other “alternative news source.” But those days are over.

The left in this country has resigned itself to the fact that it

can’t win debates with its “facts,” so it looks for leadership in

those screaming street hippies. But it takes them off the street,

cleans them up, calls them adjunct professors and put them squarely

in the editorial section as “guest columnists.”

Cheers,

Justin W. Scharton

Senior, natural resources management

The CSU Republicans have chosen to frame the debate over the

liberal postings on campus in a certain way, i.e. they have chosen

to make it an issue concerning vandalism. This is a fair way to

frame the debate. However, once one has chosen to frame a debate in

a certain way, one must be consistent in the way in which they

debate.

The CSU Republicans are not being consistent in their arguments.

If they are truly concerned only with vandalism and chalking in

so-called “no-chalk zones,” then they will take the postings off

professor’s doors and chalkings within the acceptable chalk zones

off their Web site.

I fail to see how the way in which one chooses to decorate their

own office door, or what they choose to chalk within acceptable

limits, constitutes vandalism. The “Campus Insanity Project,”

though it purports to be about vandalism, is about monitoring the

free speech of those who hold beliefs that are different from their

own in hopes that this free speech will be silenced. This is

apparent in the CSU Republicans insistence on posting the doors of

professors and a section called “Those Crazy Classes”? (formerly

“Those Crazy Professors”) on their Web site.

My request for the CSU Republicans is simple: be consistent.

Once you have framed the debate in a certain way, work within those

boundaries you have set. If vandalism is your concern, then do not

post pictures of doors and chalkings that are obviously not acts of

vandals. Be upfront about your concerns, do not try and spin the

issue of attacking those people that are ideologically different

from you into a legal matter.

Paul Franco

Senior, philosophy