Sun columnists, Julie Block, Andrew Daines and Munier Salem join Associate Editor Tony Manfred to talk about the stories and controversies that have defined their time in Ithaca in an epic, 10-part podcast.

To the Editor:

Re: “Defining Resolution 44,” Opinion, Feb. 23

If the perfect university anti-discrimination statute had been devised, Cornell would have adopted it already (and not by a single tie-breaking vote). What we have now in the Student Assembly’s Resolution 44 is an imperfect proposal that, by most accounts, will fail to pass Presidential muster. Whether the search for an ideal discrimination or hate-speech statute is in vain, I cannot say.

Cornell University should provide members of independent student organizations the same First Amendment rights they would be entitled to in the real world.

To the Editor:

Re: “To Eliminte Discrimination,” Opinion, Feb. 11

Yesterday’s article, “U.A. Passes Non-Discrimination Clause, Changing the Campus Code of Conduct,” addressed many of the issues arising from the University Assembly’s recent revision of language in the Campus Code of Conduct concerning harassment on campus. Although some items were not addressed — or not adequately addressed — by this news piece, we were far more troubled by the editorial, “To Eliminate Discrimination,” which egregiously mischaracterized the resolution. It is imperative that the university community be presented with an accurate narrative of the facts when discussing important matters such as free speech, harassment and discrimination. Likewise, President Skorton must consider the full and true facts when he is presented with the U.A.’s recent resolution.

Yesterday, the S.A. broadened its proposed ban on discrimination in the leadership of student organizations.

After 10 months of debate and controversy surrounding discrimination and freedom of expression on campus, the University Assembly voted yesterday to include a disputed clause in the Campus Code of Conduct that will change the face of student speech.

To the Editor:

Re: “With Us Or ... It’s Discriminatory,” Opinion, Dec. 2

The author makes an assumption that I lament is far too commonly accepted in our society today. This false assumption is that religion has some special privilege that renders it free from judgment. The author readily accepts that the Chi Alpha society’s views on homosexuality are socially unacceptable, yet defends their right to hold these views based purely on the fact that they stem from religion. These Christians will openly admit that their views come purely from their theology, not from evidence or logic. The idea that homosexuals should not be granted the same rights as other members of society has no argument other than “God demands it.”

To the Editor:

Re: “A Campus Code That Permits Discrimination,” Opinion, Nov. 24

I was relieved to find subsequent articles challenging many of the highly dubious claims made in this initial editorial. However, a few omissions and mischaracterizations remain unaddressed.

First, the editorial falsely claims (as many others have) that Chi Alpha removed Chris Donohoe ’10 from his leadership position because of his sexual orientation — because of his status. This distorts the actual facts of the incident. As The Sun itself reported last spring, Donohoe’s sexual orientation was known by the group before he assumed his leadership position. The group chose him as a leader because he believed in the doctrine of the group. Donohoe was only asked to step down after he later disaffirmed his belief that homosexual acts are sinful — one of the group’s founding beliefs. Freedom of association requires groups be free to limit their leadership to those who belief in the founding tenets of their group, however unsavory those beliefs may be.

An anti-discrimination clause … who would ever oppose that? At face value, certainly no one would support discrimination. The answer is so trivial that The Sun’s editorial board chose to adopt Bush’s “with us or against us” mentality on the Campus Code of Conduct, claiming a code without an anti-discrimination clause “inherently accepts” discrimination.