Georgia Tech President Wayne Clough (wayne.clough@carnegie.gatech.edu) has finally succeeded. His goal upon taking charge of the school was to transform it into a real university (not just an “institute”) where tolerance is emphasized more than academic achievement. One look at the following note tells you just how much Tech has changed since Clough took over:

A V-Day wish for own very own Ruth Malhotra: This Valentine’s Day, you cannot attack gay marriage. It is about love and you are about hate.

This Valentine’s Day, you cannot condemn a woman’s choice. It is about love and you are about hate.

This Valentine’s Day, you cannot protest The Vagina Monologues. It is about love and you are about hate.

No, this Valentine’s Day, you will be raped. Sex is about love and through it you will experience hate. I cannot wait.

The note you just read was written to Ruth Malhotra because she decided to file suit against Georgia Tech. She wanted to, among other things, nullify a speech code that was being enforced selectively against conservative speech at Georgia Tech.

Now that Ruth and her co-plaintiff Orit have defeated the speech code in federal court, supporters of the speech code are angry. Because they are opposed to hate speech, they want to see Ruth raped, killed, and choked. In fact, Georgia Tech student Jenny Rainwater had this to say to Ruth:

I want you to remember this, Ruth. You are in no place to judge or hate any other human being. It is NOT your job to determine the spiritual cleanliness of anyone. Only GOD may deem the worthy and and [sic] unworthy. You are a sinner. We are all sinners. And in assuming the role of GOD, you are sinning. Ruth...all sin is equal in the eyes of the LORD. Damning homosexuals doesn't make you a better Christian; it makes you a worse one. And if, as so many fundamentalists say, you are simply trying to bring these sheep gone astray to the way and the light that is HIM, do you really think damning them is the way to go about it? JESUS LOVES YOU NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE, and *that* is the message you should be sending. Not one of intolerance.

I hope one day you can open your mind, and, more importantly, open your heart. Regards, Jenny Rainwater.

The saddest part of this note is not that is says “you are in no place to judge” just three sentences before it says “you are a sinner.” Nor is it the fact it says “you are in no place to…hate” after its author threatened to choke its recipient.

It isn’t even the fact that Rainwater used her Georgia Tech email address (gtg261w@mail.gatech.edu) to say “i really want to choke you bitch” in April of 2006 while Tech’s speech code was still in effect.

The saddest part of this note is that it was written by a student at Georgia Institute of Technology. Let that sink in for a moment.


Intelligent people understand that the people who see “hate speech” everywhere are among the most unhinged members of our society. They also realize that universities with speech codes and widespread emphasis on tolerance and diversity will attract these unhinged students disproportionately.

Intelligent people understand these things but not Wayne Clough. After losing the speech code aspect of the lawsuit he continues to fight on with the other components of the case, which he will also surely lose. And the Georgia taxpayers are footing the bill while Clough sides with these lunatics.

That is why he is the DrAdams 2006 Jackass of the Year. Take a few minutes to email Clough (wayne.clough@carnegie.gatech.edu) with a sincere and heartfelt note of congratulations. I know I will.

Townhall.com::The 2006 Jackass of the Year::By Mike S. Adams

foundit - I don't understand. Why are the emails from one student being used to categorize the "Left"?

I took the liberty of posting this for Observer who brought it to the boards.
There are some things I find inane about the article, but I posted it anyways because it's good fodder for conversation.

First, I really hate articles which gloss over important issues. The article revolves around the response of people to the court "nullify a speech code that was being enforced selectively against conservative speech at Georgia Tech".
And that's about all you hear about this "speech code". No discussion on what the code really said.
I suspect I would agree that the "speech code" should have been overturned, but this article gives nobody any idea what it was truly about.

Second, this article shows the responses of SOME who are on the left to the issue.
In reality, we have Clough and whatever supporters he has in getting this "speech code" enacted, even though we get no real clue what it was about in the first place.
And then we have either one or two e-mails that were written to the lady who got the speech code overturned. The author seems to refer to the second quote as originating from the same source as the first by talking about the author wanting Ruth "raped".
But then the author claims that the SUPPORTERS of the speech code are espousing Ruth get raped. Notice how this author suddenly went from ONE e-mail to claiming that the SUPPORTERS of the speech code support violence against Ruth???

I mean, should I take a couple of the things that have been said against me and gays and suddenly claim that "the opposition of gay marriage" think it would be a good idea for me to be killed or lobotomized?

Whoever wrote violence against Ruth was wrong. Period.
But the author of this article is just plain stupid to generalize the sick actions of some (possibly even just one!) onto the entire group.

oh - thanks - I thought it was weird you would post this article as a 'truth' of some kind LOL

I agree - the article (actually, just a couple of sentences) is long on hyperbole and short on facts. It's obviously an op/ed and not a news story.

Why is it that everybody on the right is so damned mean?! - I mean SERIOUSLY

I wouldn't say that everybody on the right is mean, but there does seem to be an inherent audience for the "mean" approach.

What do you mean by "mean"?

For example, is it mean for homosexuals to demand a redefinition of marriage against the wishes of the majority of their fellow Americans?


Or is "mean" another way of describing the good old American traditions of personal responsibility and self-sufficiency?

No.


No.

Why not?

Wny not?

Here Garysher goes again with his "ask *why* incessantly like a three-year old, and pretend it's an argument" routine...

Because considering something "mean" just because a request is made is stupid.
By that standard, any Christian who asks other people to change their religion to Christianity would be "mean".

Gar?
Do YOU think it's mean to ask people to do something?


Gar?
Do YOU think "mean" is another way of describing the good old American traditions of personal responsibility and self-sufficiency?

If not, then stop asking me stupid questions...

In an earlier post you said:

"I wouldn't say that everybody on the right is mean, but there does seem to be an inherent audience for the "mean" approach."

Why do you become so belligerent when asked to elaborate on your statement? Are you not sure what you meant?

It's so gay