Anne Hainer's article ("Ex-terrorist speaks about Nazi regime" Wed., Oct. 27) about Walid Shoebat's talk had two important aspects of which she was apparently unaware: It was full of inaccuracies and was hate speech. Shoebat offered two hours of vitriol spewed against Islam that left me, ultimately, concerned for my safety. He used sensationalistic descriptions, imprecise historical references and an engaging speaking style to whip the crowd into a frenzy of hatred against Moslems. Among his "brutal truths" were that Moslem fathers and sons "slaughter their daughters" who want to marry outside the religion, that Islam is a breeding ground for enemies of America and that it encourages the rape and lynching of Christians and Jews. He followed this rhetoric by suggesting that the Judeo-Christian faiths were clearly superior to the Moslem faith, because "90 percent of all scientific and other knowledge" is the product of Christianity. The irony in all this -- that rhetoric about religious and ethnic superiority disguised as "truths" was supported by a group (Chabad) representing a historically-persecuted religion (Judaism) -- was missed by the audience, who applauded upon his conclusion.

I am not one to curb free speech, even when hateful. However, I am disturbed that a host of university groups supported this speaker, that the University Park Allocations Committee money was used to fund it, that the format did not allow for the expression of alternative viewpoints and that the content of the speech was in violation of university policies against intolerance. The final straw is when I saw the story glorifying the talk and quoting audience members who were awed by the insight. Is there not a problem here? Wow.