Editor,
I am writing this letter in response to the many letters that have mentioned the College Republicans, an organization that I proudly serve in as state chairperson. In these letters, the UNM College Republicans were attacked for discouraging free speech on campus unless they agree with their ideals.
I'd first like to emphasize that the opinions presented in the Daily Lobo by editorials from our group members are opinions of the individuals only and not the whole of the College Republican Organization. I'd now like to put this issue to rest concerning free speech and anti-American accusations.
In an earlier letter that I wrote to the Daily Lobo, I stated that Professor Berthold should be fired, not for his insensitive comment on Sept. 11, but for his abusive language to students in the past and his obscene behavior in previous classes. I have no problem with him speaking his mind even though I couldn't disagree more with some of his beliefs.
I also stated that Professor Berthold was anti-American, and I stand by that statement. Berthold is anti-American, not for disagreeing with U.S. policy or for speaking against the government, but for cheering on the murder of U.S. military personnel, the men and women who have sworn to protect the freedom he so freely uses. He has the right to say what he did, but he is anti-American for what he said.
My organization recently hosted State Rep. William Fuller at our "Rally for America and Her Veterans."
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
In his speech, Rep. Fuller specifically stated his disapproval of what many on campus believe and teach, but then continued to approve of their free speech by saying, "I support their right to speak their mind so that it's easier for us to avoid them and know who we can depend on."
So disagree with Rep. Fuller if you please, but do not accuse Rep. Fuller of wanting to stifle individual dissent. My "counterpart," Matt Kennicott, who is also a College Republican officer, stood up for Rep. Fuller in his letter on Nov. 15.
Now Mr. Kennicott is being attacked by many people who have seriously misunderstood him and Rep. Fuller. It needs to be clear that Rep. Fuller, Mr. Kennicott and myself totally support the First Amendment, which allows us to say the things we believe.
We also support and encourage the free speech of anyone who agrees or disagrees with us or our government's policies. We never said that people can't speak freely, we just disagree with what some people say.
Comments made about some people being anti-American are not to be confused. I believe that anyone who uses her right to free speech is in a way being patriotic. However, one ceases to be patriotic when her speech disagrees with defending the basic freedoms and safety that enables her to speak her mind. This should not be misunderstood; they have every right to disagree with defending our country, but they are anti-American for straying from the American ideal of defending freedom and sovereignty. This is only to be said about the small percentage of people who believe the United States should do nothing to defend itself, but rather apologize for being who we are.
The accusation of being anti-American is not a label put on people who disagree with the method our government is taking to defend itself. These people may be dangerously unrealistic for the way they think we should defend ourselves, but they are, in fact, patriotic for wanting to defend freedom and safety.
Again, the people who do not want to defend the basic freedom and safety that make America great are anti-American. They are free to speak their minds, but they are anti-American for not wanting to defend basic American ideals from evil terrorists. Merely speaking one's mind does not make a person patriotic if the content of his speech undermines the basic value system of our nation.
I hope this gives clarity to the argument my colleagues and I are posing, and we welcome further debate on this subject.
Ryan D. Rice
UNM student and chairperson of Federation of College Republicans
