Ryan ChartrandAs an ardent advocate for civil liberties (and particularly of First Amendment rights which provided the basis for the Texas v. Johnson decision relating to flag burning), I agree with Eller’s argument about the constitutionality of the SFSU flag burning by the College Republicans. However, Eller’s column contained dual arguments: one defending the act on a constitutional basis, and the other justifying the act on a moral basis. To Eller, the act was not only legitimate but morally justified, as he argued from a politico-religious standpoint. There must be a distinction between these two arguments for, as I’m sure, there are people like me who agree with Eller on the first, and fervently disagree on the second.
It is a testament to our First Amendment rights that we should hear such dissident views; but those views should not be discriminated against on the basis of the majority views held by the SFSU administration.
I will refrain from attacking Eller’s view relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for that is not the real issue at hand (even if it is sensational).
Audrey Crescenti
Political science and history sophomore