In my opinion, the real question about Chad Calek and his column is not whether he should use blunt language vs. euphemisms when he writes it.

The real question is whether or not he has anything new, interesting or thought-provoking to say in the first place.

His views on women and their behavior, for instance, were already moldy back when the Pyramids were conceived.

I think his writing is far less shocking than it is simply boring.

The Daily might be equally justified in devoting news space to a story about the invention of a certain item of cutting-edge technology known as a “wheel.”

Sorry to be so blunt about this, but it’s the way I see it.

I think Chad can relate to that.

May I suggest that he take some time off from his work at the Daily to take some more classes and do some serious reading on a variety of subjects from different viewpoints, then come back later and try his hand at column-writing again.

Royce Bitzer

Postdoctoral research associate

Entomology