Examine the situation

QSU and you: looking into the details of the "hate crime"

As I read last Friday's article concerning the validation of the Queer Student Union's Hamilton Library display, I sympathized with their situation.

Any time intolerance strikes the University of Hawai`i campus, my sentiments go immediately to the injured party.

However, as I read deeper into the story, I noticed a few details that might have been overlooked by the casual reader.

As the article states, QSU founder and president Perlita Payne found a scribbled memo, expressing some intolerant an inappropriate sentiments, tacked over a flyer the QSU had posted.

Later on, someone ripped up one of their cartoon strips displaying allegedly offensive material. Describing the event, Payne said, "We need to expose these things. I mean, this is pure hate and we shouldn't tolerate it."

No one was injured. No one was harassed or embarrassed publicly. Just a little paper posting contest on a public bulletin board.

Doesn't labeling the incident a "hate crime" seem a little extreme?

Although definitely negative and immature, if these actions are construed as intolerable, perhaps we ought to re-evaluate our concept for what is acceptable and what is, as Payne defines it, intolerable.

To help student interaction become healthier and holistically beneficial, I have taken the liberty of drawing up some right I think should be respected.

1.) The Right to Not be Challenged by Others. Why would anyone want to go to a school of higher learning only to have their beliefs questioned?

According to the Jan. 13 issue of the International Herald Tribune, researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles found that almost 75 percent of 1997 fall freshmen go to college to get a degree to make more money. [A 2013 survey found the same thing.]

The same goes for me. I mean, I'm here to get a degree, not to think objectively about my value system.

In the case of the QSU, I don't think they should have to deal with anyone who has a problem with their views.

As I see it, people who challenge my opinions are really just disturbing my peace, and I think that is really out of place on today's university campus.

2.) The Right to Inform Everyone About My Group. Payne expressed her disposition that an "environmental safe-zone" would not be to her satisfaction and added that education of diverse lifestyles should be added to all social science curricula.

That, I think, is a great idea, but I would insist that we get an equal number of classes and time spent on education for every lifestyle that has a Registered Independent Organization on campus. This includes the Malaysian Student Organization, Indonesian Club, the Hong Kong Student Association, and the Laotian Culture Club.

These are just a few of the RIOs that represent lifestyles which are not in the least inferior to the lifestyles the QSU represents, so it would only be fair to include them in the changes made to the social science curricula.

3.) The Right to Focus Exclusively on Myself. I like this one a lot. With this right, everyone would be able to do whatever they want, without regard to fellow students' concerns.

Public property would become my property -- I could double park my car right outside Kenneth Mortimer's house, ignore any "No Parking Except for Parking Permit" sign, and blow off that Campus Center phone's stupid three-minute limitation to talk as long as I want, without spending any of my precious quarters.

I think the QSU would definitely agree with me on this right. As Friday's article established, on Dec. 4, 1997, they covered a Hamilton Library bulletin board with informational flyers, and included personal coming-out stories written by some of the members.

While I have no problem with the content of their material, what irritates me is the amount of public space they took up to express their ideas.

The use of the bulletin boards is open and free, but it seems they abused that privilege through excessive advertisement.

4.) The Right to Make Up more Rights Whenever I'm Offended. Professor Karl Minke, Chairman of the UH Task Force for Sexual Orientation, said the right to free speech does not include the right to silence others. On this point we agree.

However, he went on to maintain that free speech does not mean students can express their opinions at the expense of others.

I have a problem with this idea. Does this mean that the first group to express their opinion gets all the free speech rights, and that any other group gets none, because that would be at the expense of others?

Besides that, when did Minke get to decide the limitations of my free speech rights?

Wasn't he indirectly quoted earlier in that article saying, "the UH policy against such actions is unclear?"

How is he able, then, to judge whether the action was an impediment to the QSU's right of expression or an exercise of free speech?

I really does not matter what the QSU said. I just hope my right are never infringed upon by another's, and I don't think I should have to surrender my right to lifestyle apathy so some RIO can teach me something I don't want to learn.

As one of the three-quarters of the student body here to make the big bucks once I graduate, I can honestly say I don't want to hear it.