To the editor:

Why was there so much controversy over the “2 Heathers” table tents?

I could understand people complaining about a table tent that either makes insulting remarks (such as discriminatory statements) or presents grotesque illustrations or information that might make someone’s stomach uneasy. But how did the “2 Heathers” table tents do any of those things?

Yes, it’s understandable that there’s a time and a place for certain topics to be brought to people’s attention, but who is to decide that? They’re just table tents, for God’s sake!

If you don’t like something a table tent says, you can just do what I do when I see MTV playing the same garbage over and over, shrug it off.

After all, what if I deem it inappropriate for table tents regarding GSB elections to be put up? Hey, maybe I don’t like to think about voting when I’m trying to eat my french fries, but I’m not going to go complain about it like a baby.

If a table tent is actually offensive, then it makes sense to file a complaint with the Department of Residence. What I’m getting at is I think some of the people who complained did so for another reason. Perhaps it is the anti-abortion implications made by this table tent.

If you look at the “2 Heathers” table tents with open eyes, it’s really not taking sides with pro-abortionists or anti-abortionists.

It is simply presenting information about the choices two women made. I’m assuming these were real choices made by real people. Obviously the Young Americans Foundation (YAF) was trying to make a point with this table tent, or they simply wanted us to think.

If some woman really did have an abortion at 31 weeks, that’s just plain sick whether you look at from an anti or pro-abortion standpoint.

This pregnancy was in its third trimester, which means the baby had fully developed organs and was most likely capable of sustaining its own life outside the womb. It was in every sense, a human child. The only difference is he/she hadn’t been born yet.

The argument that this child has no right to life because it is not a separate entity holds no water, as you can easily compare an infant in the third trimester to an adult dependent on machines for survival with a high chance of recovery. I’ve heard plenty of people who are pro-abortion say that abortions in the third trimester ought to be illegal.

Pro and anti-abortionists must realize they are all human, and their beliefs may be flawed.

Everyone should be in the pursuit of truth, and that truth lies within all of us. Listening to the opposing side allows people to re-evaluate their own beliefs. It makes no sense to lash out at the opposing side, just as it makes no sense to complain about a table tent because it conflicts with your own beliefs.

Abortion is a very serious issue in America, and we should all accept information about abortion issues with open arms.

Whatever point the “2 Heathers” table tent intended to make, it doesn’t justify people whining to the Department of Residence. Its content was not discriminatory, insulting or offensive, nor did it force certain beliefs onto people in any way. If you are someone who complained about this table tent because you honestly felt it was very inappropriate material for food service, that’s cool.

For those of you who complained because this table tent portrayed a viewpoint that conflicts with your own, slap yourself upside your head.

Joe Distefano

Senior

Electrical engineering