The summer has passed and now seems a fitting occasion to reflect on the Village takeover of the HUB and the demands of Black Caucus upon the University. Frankly, this article is a difficult one to write. I know that when someone disagrees vocally with the actions or intentions of certain segments of campus or society, they are often labeled as racist or intolerant, as many people who preach the nobility of diversity are unaccepting of the diversity of viewpoint. But, I cannot, in good conscience, for fear of name-calling and insult forgo the opportunity to write about the Black Caucus agenda and the events of last year.

First off, it is necessary to acknowledge that racial problems exist at Penn State — they exist everywhere. Rallies and demonstrations to encourage students, professors and administrators to come together to address these concerns are admirable and appropriate. But to manipulate a student body and use a death threat to do so are neither admirable nor appropriate.

The death threat against the then-president of Black Caucus was scary and deserved immediate attention from the university. According to Penn State President Spanier, "From the moment we became aware, we made the commitment to put around the clock protection on the student." Additionally, a team of federal, state and local investigators went to work in an attempt to find the person responsible for the threat. Hence, the response of Penn State and the surrounding community was quick and balanced.

Unfortunately, a drawback to the Internet and e-mail is that threats of the type that had already been received by many in the Penn State community are common and easy to make. Individuals receive threats like this on a regular basis. Oftentimes, it is very difficult to track down the perpetrators. Black Caucus, then and now, insists that the university turned a deaf ear with their lives in the balance. At a huge rally on the HUB lawn last spring, speaker after speaker remarked that his or her life was in jeopardy by being at Penn State. Emotional rhetoric devoid of reason makes it easy to entice a crowd, but difficult to win an argument.

And the argument that they put forth is that the climate of Penn State, as evidenced by the threatening e-mail and letters required the administration to meet several Black Caucus demands. The e-mail, incidentally, was traced to a computer lab at Temple University, so was probably not sent by anyone with a connection to Penn State.

One demand was an upgrade to the African/African-American Studies Department, requiring the tenure of 10 full-time professors in the department by the start of next school year. Another demand was that by the start of next school year, six mandatory credits of African-American/Third World studies must be placed among the university's requirements for graduation. These demands are clearly inconsistent with the stated purpose of the Village and its desire for us to "love, not hate." The mission of this entire escapade was supposedly to promote the acceptance and understanding of diversity. Yet, only one sort of diversity education ever mattered to Black Caucus.

Why is racial diversity, more important to them than religious diversity, gender diversity, the diversity of sexual orientation, ideological diversity, ethnic diversity or the diversity of different backgrounds? Black Caucus is really not interested in the promotion of racial diversity, either, because they see no need to expand Hispanic studies or Asian-American studies, among others.

Penn State already requires that students take one course in cultural awareness or diversity in order to graduate, and maybe that number should be increased. We are more well-rounded and educated members of society when we better understand our neighbors. But with the vast variety of different backgrounds to understand and learn about, why are we told that learning about Africans and African-Americans is the most important or the most necessary? Unfortunately, it is because the Village movement was not about the promotion and understanding of diversity; it was about the promotion of a narrow agenda.

The hypocritical nature of the movement is an insult to students who supported it with out true knowledge of the Black Caucus agenda. With its soapbox and national audience, Penn State was painted as a land of intolerance and unrest. Our home was turned into an "Unhappy Valley" for the world to see — all because of an agenda that needed to paint Penn State in a negative light in order to promote its message. Penn State pride was given a thorough beating.

The administration, in the wake of Representative Lawless' campaign and the Riot of 2001, was faced with a third public relations nightmare, and the university ceded to many demands. Penn State should support efforts to promote an understanding of diversity, but not the kind of diversity that Black Caucus understands. USG Senate and Academic Assembly have formed a joint committee on diversity, and hopefully this committee can develop ideas and programs to help us learn about each other. They should not feel rail-roaded by a small segment of this campus in focusing on only one type of diversity understanding.

We should create forums where people of different sex, religion, background, ideology, sexual orientation, and race can learn from each other.

Because Black Caucus, as I do and as the student body at Penn State does, still has much to learn and understand about diversity.