UNLV has no tolerance for diversity of opinion

To the editor:

Thanks to Nevada Board of Regents member Cedric Crear for his "let's shoot the messenger" letter of March 11 in response to Glenn Cook's column on UNLV's diversity boondoggle -- oops, Office of Diversity and Inclusion. But for this letter I would have missed Mr. Cook's excellent reportage of March 8, which I read on the Review-Journal's Web site.

Mr. Crear's letter shows, more than anything Mr. Cook wrote, what a waste of a million dollars of the taxpayers' money this diversity program is. Mr. Crear should concentrate on the obvious problem of bigotry and intolerance among the most ardent supporters of this "diversity" program, as evidenced by his own intemperate letter and the torrent of hate coming from people claiming to be students and faculty, on the Web comments posted below the column.

Before telling Mr. Cook that the program "is designed for persons just like him: those afraid of opening up their minds to accept others not like themselves," he should follow the biblical injunction to look for the mote in his own eye. He should consider that Mr. Cook and the great majority of decent UNLV students had parents who taught them to respect all other people, and thus have no need for this wasteful sham.

I hope Mr. Cook will not be deterred from exposing waste or fraud by politicians and bureaucrats by non sequiturs from Mr. Crear and his band of nasty lickspittles. Note that the Web comments posted under the column -- not to mention Mr. Crear's letter -- failed to answer or explain any of Mr. Cook's findings or factual statements.

This is not the first time that UNLV has shown institutional antagonism toward diversity of opinion. One of UNLV's only claims to national fame came in 2005. Among the thousands of colleges and universities in our great country, only one was able to "best" UNLV in the 8th Annual Campus Outrage Awards. UNLV's treatment of economics professor Hans Hoppe was adjudicated the second most outrageously abusive behavior by any college in the nation. His "crime"? Quoting from the winners' citations:

"Hoppe received disciplinary sanctions for making an economically verifiable argument that homosexuals engage less in long-term financial planning than heterosexuals because they typically do not have children. One of Hoppe's students, Michael Knight, filed a complaint leading to a yearlong battle between Hoppe and the university (which Hoppe eventually won). Knight accused Hoppe of "stereotyping homosexuals. ... When the door closes and the lecture began [sic], he needs to make sure he is remaining as politically correct as possible."

Employers, how would you like to employ this guy, or any UNLV student who has been brainwashed this way? He actually believes that political correctness is the most desirable part of a university education!

This trampling of the First Amendment follows directly from the Board of Regents' Diversity and Security Committee policies of suppressing free speech. If you don't believe me, go to the Review-Journal's Web site and take a look at the Web comments yourself.

One thing is sure: For all that money, they did not teach either these students or this faculty any tolerance to anyone's views except their own. Of course, when a regent shows the way, why expect more from students?

For the betterment of the university and the pockets of the long-suffering Nevada taxpayer, the Office of Diversity and Inclusion should be terminated immediately. Perhaps a part of the savings can be used to send Mr. Crear to a "re-education" course on tolerance of other peoples' ideas.

William Kelly

HENDERSON

Addicted to government

To the editor:

So the federal government has adopted the sales technique of the neighborhood drug dealer.

Offer a program with federal funds and small buy-in by the state, then, after a couple of years, drop the federal input and require the state to come up with the full amount to continue funding this new and now established program. That's how you get hooked! And our Democratic state legislators, led by Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley of Las Vegas, want to make that commitment for the future citizens of Nevada ("Buckley measure presses Gibbons," Tuesday Review-Journal).

Sure, federal funds in our hands now can accomplish much good ,but responsible management requires a thought or two about later, when federal funds are no longer available. Where will we get the funds to continue the additional unemployment benefits or pay for additional police?

Once again, politicians prove that they are incapable of long-term planning and deal only in the immediate. Responsible legislators will examine long-term effects of current decisions, lest they commit future citizens to more than they can responsibly pay. Future taxes for current benefit doesn't sound like a good trade-off to me. I suspect our future Nevadans will think likewise.

William F. Brennan

LAS VEGAS

Business as usual

To the editor:

So the president and Congress are supposedly outraged about the AIG bonuses. I'm outraged that they gave our billions of dollars to them in the first place.

There's no way to block the bonuses because they're already in a contract? Every other industry is having to rewrite the contracts with their lenders. But then again, the people who extorted our money from their gophers in the Capitol are the same ones who are getting the bonuses, so why would they agree to give them up, since they don't have to?

Did you really think that there was going to be change in Washington after this election? Go to any pig farm and you'll see that the pigs change, but the crowding at the trough is the same.

Dale Wysocki

LAS VEGAS

Corporate hookers

To the editor:

The Review-Journal took some heat for publishing the color photos of a couple of dozen Las Vegas prostitutes on its Feb. 15 front page.

How about redeeming yourself by putting the AIG bonus corporate hookers on the front page, too? In full color?

Maybe with mailing addresses, too.

Bob Lieberman

LAS VEGAS

Nice carbon footprint

To the editor:

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the government decided that the speaker of the House should no longer fly on commercial planes. The speaker is next in line for the presidency in the event that the president and vice president are not able to serve.

Since the 9/11 attacks, security at airports and on the airlines has been much improved. Cockpit doors have been made stronger, pilots can carry guns in the cockpit and we take our shoes off as we go through security.

We haven't had a successful terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11.

The cost to provide the speaker with a plane to commute to and from home every weekend is estimated to be $120,000, or about $6 million per year. Should we taxpayers continue to spend this kind of money to protect the speaker against an attack that none of us believe will ever happen? Hasn't the government spent enough of our tax dollars? When are we going to see some belt-tightening on the part of our elected officials? Put the speaker in the security line with the rest of us, and let her take her shoes off.

David Kelly

HENDERSON

Unwanted savings

To the editor:

Taxpayers paying for empty jails while criminals are released early? That's like kicking renters out of foreclosed homes. Bean counters have their own little mystical world that they live in ("Opening of new jail debated," March 14 Review-Journal).

Meanwhile, people are coming home to burglarized, trashed and vandalized houses or searching a parking lot for a car that is no longer there -- "victimless" crimes because they were not hit on the head with a bat, stabbed with a knife or shot with a gun.

I say keep these people in jail until they serve their full sentence. If this means hiring more officers, then we are creating jobs at a time when they are sorely needed.

Peggy Swartwood

LAS VEGAS