On Sept. 27, a letter drew attention to a few words from Dr. Thomas Hill, vice president of Student Affairs. I suspect his words were intended as humor, nevertheless, they concerned me very much when I noticed them on the 26th. Dr. Hill barbed that if a woman friend of his had given away an Olympic medal he had won, then he “might just have to kill her.” One of the words in this excerpt is a very, very violent verb. The object of the verb was female. I found the verb shocking when I read the article about Dr. Hill’s Olympic experience. I am not really a feminist, although I am a humanist. Sara Junck’s letter drew my attention to something important I missed: the object of “to kill” was “her.” Thank you, Ms. Junck for drawing my attention. Ms. Junck’s opinion ought to have had a free and unbiased opportunity to be read. She properly believed in leaving the formation of opinion up to the reader – if she happened to get any unbiased reader. The Daily editorial board ganged up on Ms. Junck and did something unethical and nasty. The Daily made sure that before a reader could get to Ms. Junck’s letter the reader would first have to notice the Daily’s opinion on Ms. Junck’s letter. The Daily editorial board defended Dr. Hill without letting Dr. Hill defend himself. This action was as wrong as what was inflicted upon Ms. Junck. Since the Daily’s writes that “Dr. Hill is one of the good guys,” please tell us who Dr. Hill is being compared to? Other high administrators now or previously at ISU? Or is the comparison being made between Ms. Junck and Mr. Hill? Thomas Hill seems to be an at least decent Vice President of Student Affairs. Sara Junck seems to be an at least decent Coordinator of Family Services Women’s Week and The Margaret Sloss Women’s Center. Ms. Junck wrote a letter respectful of people’s rights to form their own opinion. Before readers got to see Ms. Junck’s letter they had to read the editorial characterizing Ms. Junck’s opinion with an effort to dictate what people should and should not say to other people. The last sentence written by the editorial board before our eyes scan right and down to notice Ms. Junck’s letter, which she intended as an explicit request for ongoing, opinion-forming dialogue: “George Orwell certainly thought this tactic would work when he wrote `1984.'” Who really is employing Orwellian tactics on page four of the Sept. 27 Daily? David Seim

Graduate Student

History of Technology and Science