Reaction to ARHS meeting hypocritical

This letter is in regard to your article "ARHS meets behind closed doors." I have to say I am truly ashamed by this article -- not that the Association of Residence Hall Students would close a meeting, but that The Daily Collegian would print this.

The article claims that "the Collegian editors believe that informing students about the activities of their elected representatives is an important function of a newspaper and an important part of the governmental process," and that by closing its meeting, ARHS impeded the student-government process.

And I agree.

However, I think it is suspect of the Collegian to print this as they, over the past two years, have rarely, if ever, shown at an ARHS meeting.

The Collegian has not reported the activities of these student representatives on a weekly basis. Yet, when ARHS did something you considered to be a mistake, it made the front page.

Having worked with ARHS for 2 years now, and having attended ARHS council meetings, I know that in fact the topic of live-in computer consultants has come up before.

And ARHS has discussed it. Yet, the Collegian was not there then to report what the ARHS council decided.

The day that you begin to consistently and competently report ALL of the news of what happens on this campus, then you will have room to make a judgement as to whether an organization has made a mistake.

But not before then.

Steven N. Blivess
junior-speech communications

STRAIGHT situation predictable at PSU

According to the Constitution of the United States of America, the freedom of speech, religion, press or the right of people to assemble shall always be the right of every U.S. citizen.

So when I started reading about STRAIGHT in The Daily Collegian, I was not surprised.

As a student, I am personally sick and tired of rallies and the crying of the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Student Alliance.

Obviously, I am not the only one.

So when a group of students starts its own organization regarding heterosexuality, they are slammed against the wall.

I would like to quote an article that appeared in The Daily Collegian on Feb. 12, titled "USG involvement in vigil questioned." It read, "STRAIGHT has garnered controversy because some have voiced concerns about whether the organization is, or will become, an anti-gay hate group."

So let me get this straight (no pun intended), a group of students form a group based on their beliefs, and suddenly they are a hate group?

So, if it is viewed that STRAIGHT is an anti-gay hate group, then shouldn't the LGBSA be anti-homosexual? And couldn't we also say there is a possibility that the LGBSA will become or is an anti-heterosexual hate group?

I thought that this was America and that America was founded on the rights of the individual. Or maybe these rights don't apply here at Penn State University.

This is a message to all the homosexuals out there: If you want to be accepted into society, quit making such a big deal about the fact that you are gay.

I don't care.

Kevin Dyson
senior-geo-environmental engineering

STRAIGHT decision reflects court agenda

For a university that promotes tolerance and acceptance of all students, regardless of their political views, Penn State is full of surprises.

The Undergraduate Student Government Supreme Court's decision to reject STRAIGHT clearly shows that Penn State has its own agenda, which has nothing to do with tolerance.

The members of the USG Supreme Court have set a dangerous precedent, showing they will only grant a University charter to those groups with whose mission statements they personally agree.

By rejecting a student group whose purpose conflicts with its own agenda, the USG Supreme Court has shown everyone how tolerant Penn State really is.

Ryan Drake
junior-computer engineering

Harassment is not freedom of speech

There is a fine line between freedom of speech and harassment. When one says out loud to a group of people "This is what I think," that is freedom of speech, and essentially is a good thing.

When you send someone an offensive and/or hateful letter, however, you are not stating your views to the world, but rather infringing upon that one person's right to the pursuit of happiness, also guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

It is irrelevant whether you believe you are right, as you did not put it up for public approval/disapproval. In fact, on the surface, it seems as if you yourself don't believe in what you are saying strongly enough to make a public statement.

Gary Morella (letter, Feb. 13) says that the rights of "a large segment" of the campus population's rights are being trampled on by Penn State.

I feel he is suffering from a persecution complex. The fundamental basis of the constitution is the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The groups that Mr. Morella mentions are groups fighting for those very rights, as are many other minority groups.

Morella's idea of happiness, apparently, is to ridicule and harass anyone who doesn't agree with his views. That's fine, as long as he does so publicly, letting the public decide if what he says has merit.

Lastly, in his own melodramatic style, he says that Penn State is tolerant of all views except those of people of faith. I haven't heard Penn State saying "you must become an atheist" or anything of the sort.

All I have heard is that Penn State has acted to eliminate harassing E-mail from its system, something that Harrisburg and the federal government not only condone, but require.

John Van Eck
State College