Two weeks ago, a gross manifestation of ignorance and bigotry appeared on our campus. No, I do not refer to the anti-homosexual chalkings protesting National Coming Out Day, for those opinions, when in contrast against support for homosexuality, create pluralism, a typically desirable condition in a community of free thought. The manifestation, rather, appeared in this very newspaper, in the form of Opinion Editor Susanna Murley's article, "Campus intolerance revealed."

This half-page of name-calling, complete with the most unsavory caricature I have seen in a long time, fulfills its own title; intolerance towards just about every St. Olaf student has a voice in this column. Not only is this a parade of prejudices and stereotypes of equal injustice as those whose behavior it takes aim at, but a personal attack on a vast range of people. Particularly because it intends to be a call for respect and compromise among diverse perspectives, the article is over-saturated with unfairly general opinions and provocative language. It resorts to a liberal use of accusatory labels, and thus succeeds only in insulting an enormous bracket of people.

I applaud the response's intention to urge tolerance and respect of diverse opinions and lifestyles, but I am appalled by her method of attempting this. The piece is a round-up of "the usual suspects" (statistically), the "country white-bred boys and girls," that fully neglects the possibility of them being among the one-quarter of our student population not from the Midwest.

For all I know the artist of the "knifed heads of happy gay people" could be an international student. I have no concrete evidence of the person's hometown, hair color or religion, and neither does anyone who did not witness the "artists" at their work. This arbitrary search for a scapegoat and acrimonious writing are hardly consistent with the Messenger's high standards of journalism.

Repeatedly, this article employs (or should I say deploys) labels that only bear testimony to bitterness. Tags such as "the Abercrombie-wearing blond Lutheran majority" (this sounds like a taxonomical term), "goodie-two-shoes" (what really is that?), "country white-bred boys and girls" (do I detect some racism there?) and the recurring "a-hole" (a facile derogative that will hardly earn the support of the campus) carry as much validity and justice as the term "faggot" in reference to a homosexual. These labels further evidence a need to find a whipping-boy for the inappropriate comments that defaced our pathways. I wear Abercrombie & Fitch regularly, but the brand of my clothes neither creates nor changes my views of the world. It is a brand, embraced by a wide segment of our population perhaps because of its quality; however, I have yet to meet someone on this campus who would "marginalize" another for not sharing the same fashion tastes.

"Campus intolerance revealed" is an example of throwing blind punches out of simple bitterness. Such all-too-common resentment against the so-called "sheltered majority" is no less biased and general than the "art" of the anti-homosexual chalkers; such incessant use of labels suggests not only ignorance but insensitivity. If anything, we need peacemakers and moderators on this campus and throughout our society "Campus intolerance revealed" only serves to affirm this need.