Letter: Speech issue diverts attention from Whitehorn's past

The Laura Whitehorn case is a prime example of the administration's use of freedom of speech to divert attention from a speaker's personal history.

Far from being an act of valor, Whitehorn's actions in 1983 violated the rule of law upon which this nation was constructed. Most rational, sensible Americans can think of legal ways to protest their government's actions that do not involve bombing the U.S. Capitol. Visiting Associate Professor of African and African-American Studies Becky Thompson's assertion that Whitehorn was somehow fulfilling a patriotic duty in her attack on the Capitol is breathtakingly offensive, not to mention flat-out wrong.

Some administrators claim Whitehorn should be permitted to speak on the basis of freedom of speech, despite her past. I am a proponent of the free exchange of ideas in an academic setting. As a community, however, we must draw the line. Academic diversity cannot always trump other considerations. Regardless of what Whitehorn might add to the debate on race and gender, her egregious record should have instantly disqualified her from speaking.

I am ashamed to be associated with an academic institution that gives legitimacy to a person who clearly deserves none at all.