He started off pleasantly enough:
Dear President Frohnmayer (firstname.lastname@example.org):
Recently, I gave a speech on your campus (the University of Oregon). During the question and answer session following the speech, liberals and conservatives alike expressed concerns about the new 46-page diversity plan you recently released. They asked me to comment on the plan after reading it. That is the purpose of my letter to you today.
And from there he gave them nothing but fact and logic, the two things that harm liberals like sunlight does vampires or Kryptonite does Superman.
It wouldn't be any fun if I commented on each statement because you'd get an entire post here of quotes followed by "yeah, I agree". So I'll only hit the best of the best.
Yeah, I agree.
In case you missed it, the two key words in that passage are “inappropriate” and “under-represented.”
Regarding the former, the university must disabuse itself of the notion that it is responsible for ruling on the “propriety” of speech in an effort to make people feel “included, respected, and safe.” Campus radicals fought hard in the 1960s for students to be treated like adults. College administrators are fighting just as hard today to make sure students are treated like children.
Of course, the fact that UO supports free speech when it agrees with the speech and opposes free speech when it disagrees with the speech can be roughly translated as follows: UO does not support free speech.
Yeah, I agree. How many times must I say it? Consistency is not a strong point for liberals. Hypocrisy is often their lifeblood.
Ignoring everyone who is offended by a student publication would be much easier if UO would get out of the business of collecting mandatory student fees to fund offensive publications. I would propose abolishing those fees altogether. This solution would have three advantages:1. It would increase socio-economic diversity at UO by making a college degree less expensive.
2. It would help the students become more responsible by raising their own publication funds rather than having the government do it for them.
3. It would get the UO administration out of the constitutional requirement of “viewpoint neutrality” with regard to the distribution of mandatory fees since there would no longer be any. This is a requirement that UO cannot seem to follow because of its own anti-Christian and pro-homosexual bias.
Perhaps a perusal of a FIREGuide would be of value here.
There's lots more in the article; go have a read.