I am writing in response to Michonne L. Omo’s column (“Message shouldn’t have been tampered with,” SN 4/17). I found her essay hypocritical and a prime example of why such an act as the sabotage of Campus Crusade for Christ’s chalk messages were necessary.

In my opinion, the whole point of writing such offensive things was not to be just childish, but rather to juxtapose the traditional viewpoints of the Christian and non-Christian.

There are complaints every year about the chalkings, and every year CCC counters with the argument that the chalk is harmless and can be easily ignored. But with a few swift strokes, the perpetrators have demonstrated that ignoring messages that fundamentally disagree with you isn’t as easy as CCC proclaims.

Decency isn’t an issue because CCC was not decent to begin with. If it only announced its meeting times, that would be one thing, but it went too far with its cheesy catchphrases and even a full Bible quote.

As a non-Christian, I am offended by CCC’s arrogance and openly oppose all of its efforts to minister. I also support any direct action against it. Omo admitted CCC’s messages could be construed as offensive, yet defended their right to exist.

However, she did no such thing for the scrawlings of the saboteurs, even though the chalked slogans were just as “harmless” as CCC’s. Just because something doesn’t insult you doesn’t mean they have a fundamental right to exist. The vandals sent a clear message to CCC that there is opposition to its fanaticism, and it will not be tolerated.

Bravo to them.

Ben Hsieh
psychology and
marketing junior