I am writing in to criticize both ASMSU and The State News for their inaccuracies in evaluating Great Issues.

First of all, I was at the ASMSU meeting, and the climate in the room was one that heavily favored Great Issues, while The State News decided to run a story that made it seem as though there were an equal amount of supporters on both sides in "ASMSU cuts Great Issues program" (SN 2/12).

Secondly, the State News Opinion Page said, "If anything should have happened to Great Issues, it should have been reprimanded and restructured so the group could live up to its potential of sparking debate among the student population by giving a stage to unusual viewpoints."

Uh, have any of you been to Great Issues events? Regardless of its lack of a mission statement, its title speaks for itself, and there is not a person in that ASMSU room who did not know what Great Issues stood for. They bring progressive speakers from various viewpoints — often the viewpoint of the oppressed.

In case you didn't know, The State News (since I suspect you didn't do much research before writing your opinion on Great Issues), this group already has lived up to its potential in sparking debate.

Even the Joe Carr event had about 100 people in attendance, and I recall members of the Jewish Student Union sat down with the two guest speakers after the event to discuss further the issue of conflict in the Middle East.

That's right, even those who pushed for the removal of Great Issues were engaged in a challenging discussion at the event they are complaining about. Apparently, they just didn't like what the speakers had to say, but not once did a member of the Jewish Student Union raise these complaints of "hate speech" to the actual speakers themselves, which they could have easily done thanks to the atmosphere Great Issues created.

José G. Villagran
interdisciplinary studies in social science senior