It is very disturbing to be aware of a situation where an "Act of Intolerance" has occurred and University officials were informed by the report of an eyewitness, yet define such as a "First Amendment activity" and refuse to take serious action on such a basis.

The incident referred to is the tearing down of a Lesbian and Gay Student Alliance/homophobia/diversity poster right outside the USG main office by an individual, who then uttered "faggots" and laughed.

This was witnessed by a concerned individual, who then obtained the name of the offender and reported the incident in writing to the appropriate University officials.

Ironically, LSGA members were told by a University official just prior to this, that the tearing down of posters would constitute an "Act of Intolerance" and yet when confronted with such a situation, define it so it is not actionable.

This is very disturbing in that there will be very, very, few enough to actually report it to University officials.

Far more consistency is needed in implementing and enforcing the Acts of Intolerance policy.

What is not understood here is that such incidents set a trend, where if these actions are defined as "protected activities," then the next step in the progression becomes an even more offensive act with more serious consequences for the intended victims.

When no one takes action or speaks out because a group is perceived as being "different," then ANY group perceived as "different" becomes fair game for offensive actions and offenders will become bolder in their actions.

This is what we have recently seen within the University community and what occurred in Nazi Germany.

Any human being is entitled to dignity and status as a human being, no matter what -- when one is treated as less than that, then we all become less and the same treatment becomes possible for anyone.

Make no bones about it -- the uttering of "faggots" connotes the same emotive force directed at victims as the expression of any other epithet -- and is just as offensive as "niggers," "Kikes" "beaners," etc. . .

Apparently around the University community it is more "acceptable" because it is aimed at "them," and I need not elaborate on how the University community would presently respond to the "more" offensive vocalizations/expressions.

The tree of hate has again sent roots deep into fertile ground and the branches are spreading wide.

When it ultimately bears a poisonous fruit, those who did not speak out before do not have any moral basis to condemn such acts when they happen, since their prior silence and lack of action has contributed to them.

Which group will be the next target?