The newest "Think About It" poster designed to combat bigotry and intolerance on campus has sparked controversy over the use of negative stereotypes, like nigger, dyke and Jesus freak.

These and other derogatory names splashed in red and white against a black background have been offensive and shocking to some.

"There has not been adequate consideration for the pain that those who have been called these names feel, and that is insensitive," said Kenneth Clarke, assistant director of religious affairs.

"People have even been killed over these words. They're not the type of words we want to use to incite spirited dialogue, as they call it," Clarke added.

Cindy Hall, department of publications' manager of marketing and advertising, and the poster's developer said, "It's getting people to talk and that's important. We were hoping to generate dialogue, and from the reaction we've gotten, it seems we are accomplishing that."

Although the words can be hurtful, it is important to bring them out into the open, said James Stewart, vice provost and a member of the campus environment team which was responsible for reviewing and revising the poster.

Bill Mahon, director of public information and a member of the campus environment team, said the poster has received tremendous support both inside and outside the University community.

"I have never worked on any project dealing with cultural diversity that has elicited such an enormously positive response from all over the country," Mahon said.

But Clarke said he is not concerned with the praise the poster has been getting from outside the University.

"So you have outside praise and internal strife," Clarke said. "The University should be dealing with people's feelings at the University. This is a problem within our community and should be dealt with there first."

Clarke said although he understands the poster was an attempt to enlighten the Penn State community about bigotry and intolerance, he doesn't agree with the method the poster uses.

"I don't think you can get rid of the stereotypes these names suggest by using them," Clarke said. "I think you need a positive alternative to bigotry or intolerance, and this poster doesn't have that."

Sabrina Chapman, director of the Center for Women Students, agreed with Clarke.

"For many persons within historically oppressed groups, these words are far more threatening and injurious than merely nasty," Chapman said. "Seeing these words is, for many, pain revisited and constitutes an experience of re-victimization. No institutional objective, even one characterized as educational and well-intentioned, can justify that."

The posters are problematic for several reasons, Clarke said. His main concern is with the lack of input for the poster from the University community.

"It took a year to develop this poster, and certainly in that period of time input from under-represented groups, student groups, faculty and staff members, could have been included," Clarke said.

Hall said before the poster was created, extensive research using faculty members, staff members and students, was carried out.

"This poster was not developed in isolation. It stemmed from research conducted here on campus as well as from extensive meetings with students," Hall said.

However, several underrepresented student groups, including Black Caucus, Latino Caucus and the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Student Alliance, think they should have been consulted before the posters were distributed.

Richard Lewis, a Black Caucus member and a resident assistant in Beaver Hall, said it was inconsiderate of the administration not to warn certain groups about the poster.

"It was disrespectful of the administrators not to contact groups they knew would be hurt by the names before they put the poster up," said Lewis (senior-black studies and Spanish).

William Asbury, vice president of student services, said although he does not think the process for creating the poster should be altered, perhaps the administration should have gone to representatives of certain groups to inform them that the posters were going to be distributed.

"That oversight was not intentional. It was simply an error in communication," Asbury said. "We have to make it a point not to make that mistake again."

The key issue for the University now is to work on the problem of intolerance now that the poster is out, he said.

But Clarke said there are still problems with the poster that need to be addressed.

"The poster is a problematic attempt at moral suasion. The message at the bottom of the poster encourages people who use these words to call Campus Life," Clarke said.

"It is simply not realistic to expect people who use these terms to turn themselves in," Clarke added.

Clarke said short of taking the posters down, he would like to see the University re-evaluate the poster and the lack of initial community input, and perhaps create a new poster.