While it doesn’t seem that David Goldstick’s remarks (in his original letter) were patently racist, their implications could be seen as trying to cast doubt on the validity of the opinions of Palestinians/Palestinian-Americans.

In his defense, I don’t think that Goldstick were trying to imply that all Palestinians, Palestinian-Americans, Palestinian activists or the whole of Islam are zealous and incapable of rational argument in regard to U.S. foreign policy.

He was claiming that Mr. Tesdell’s arguments and influence in the Daily are irresponsible and offensive to your tastes. In that regard, I don’t think that the term “racist” should apply to him. Perhaps “confused” is a better description. If Goldstick so values dissenting opinion, as you claimed in your response to Ms. Westholm, then why is he casting doubt on the validity of Mr. Tesdell’s articles with the sole argument that they are biased?

Of course his articles are biased! They’re mainly opinion pieces. If Goldstick wishes to argue against the validity of Tesdell’s arguments in a rational manner rather than trying to assess Tesdell’s bias, then do so. But, until you do so, your letters are only for your own amusement, and are in fact counter-productive to the open dialogue you so desire.

Adam Jackson

Senior

Political science