We can all agree Dr. Hill didn’t mean he was actually going to kill his friend. The problem some people have with his statement is they think it promotes violence. Whether against women or plants, it is still violence. Dr. Hill’s friend could have been a man. Big deal. The meaning is no different. There are plenty of phrases that don’t mean the same as their literal translation. Ms. Armstrong said “We accept violence in our language without . the realization that this language shapes our reality.” It may shape your reality or that of a half-witted criminal, but not mine. You can’t kill someone regardless of what the VP of Student Affairs says. People who think this speech causes violence are the same people who coddle criminals and tell everyone it is not their fault because someone told them to do it. I used that argument when I was five. It didn’t work then, and it still doesn’t. More entrenched in our lives than violent language is the phrase “It’s not my fault.” Some say Ms. Junck’s letter “ought to have had a free and unbiased opportunity to be read.” A free and unbiased reader of Dr. Hill’s comment would not believe he was condoning violence unless they twisted his words for their own biased causes. People complaining about this would be better off forming a Committee Against Stupidity rather than picking apart a little comment from an intelligent and well-liked individual such as Dr. Hill. Dr. Hill Rocks! Curt Melchert

Junior

Computer engineering