I am writing in response to a recent column by Andrew Criado ("Office of Multicultural Affairs selectively chooses which types of diversity it endorses," Nov. 13).

While his critics may not want to acknowledge the obvious, the problem Criado cites is very real. The university's attempt to push a liberal ideological agenda is not new.

I should know, I was one of the individuals who warned of it as a columnist for The Daily Collegian in the mid-1990s.

At that time, I questioned whether you could teach tolerance in a classroom, and whether focusing on diversity was not in and of itself somewhat divisive.

I noted that there seemed to be a whole lot of talk about "tolerance and diversity" taking place at Penn State, but that the implementation of those worthy goals appeared one-sided.

I suggested at the time that the school seemed to be sending a message that if you embraced liberal ideology, you were tolerant, if not, you were intolerant.

Several years later, I now have a better understanding of how important it is to strive for the goal of a society that embraces diversity and practices tolerance.

The Matthew Shepard tragedy showed all of us the horrific consequences of intolerance unchallenged.

But as Criado eloquently stated, the university should never use these worthy goals as a cover for pushing a much less worthy, one-sided political agenda. His concerns are valid.