I’ve been following the controversy about the naming of a new Madison park after a Hmong general with some distress. By all means, investigate the allegations against this particular general, if that seems so important to some people, especially our Hmong neighbors and fellow citizens. But let us not name the park after a general, no matter what the outcome of the inquiry. Let us not name a Madison park after a military man, especially not a high-ranking man, because you don’t get there without a lot of blood on your hands. If you have to name a park after a military man, then let it be one of those many simple soldiers who died in a war they didn’t ask to be sent to and who probably wondered what they were dying for.

Sophie Zermuehlen, Madison resident

There was an unsettling parallel between several of the writings featured on the Friday Opinion page (May 3). One writer claimed that by documenting a Hmong general’s participation in the heroin trade, a UW history professor was carrying out “an attack on all Hmong.” Another writer opined that for a cartoonist to lampoon (however tastelessly) the pedophilia of particular Catholic priests was “to attack an entire population of priests.” Finally, one person wrote that a local display of Palestinian art depicting “the horrors envisioned by children living in occupied territories” was somehow “anti-Semitic.”

Evidence presented? None. Not one of these three writers bothered to substantiate their respective accusations with even a shred of evidence. Name-calling and denunciation are offered as a substitute for logical argument. Alas, it appears that a Bush-style Manichean mentality — “Either you’re with us or you’re with the terrorists” — has permeated our campus’ intellectual environment.

While the U.S.A. Patriot Act represents a formal assault on our civil liberties, the tendency to denounce, rather than to critically engage, those holding different viewpoints from one’s own represents a less overt, although equally stifling, tactic. However, in the current political and intellectual climate, I won’t be surprised if expressing such oppositional sentiment will be labeled anti-American.

But as a defense against attempts to intimidate those who prefer independent thinking to the illusory refuge of conformity, that old plaque on Bascom Hall provides a ready shield: “Whatever may be the limitations which trammel inquiry elsewhere, we believe that the great state university of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found.”

Brendan LaRocque, UW graduate student

James P. Kent’s article, “The Death of Humor,” did raise important points about the value of using humor to “put a spotlight on a very current problem.” I agree that it is a necessary forum and should not be censored.

However, in the case of Adam Rust’s cartoon, I think his defense was misguided. The problem with the cartoon was not that it targeted Catholic priests, which seems to be the main source for criticism; plenty of other recent political cartoons have and have done so without being as offensive.

What made most readers recoil (including, admittedly, myself), was its apparent lack of a moralizing message. When used as social commentary, people generally expect cartoons to raise a controversial issue and then show that what has been happening is tragic and wrong. However, Rust didn’t; he left his comic open-ended and without a moral standpoint, and it became offensive.

Despite Kent’s arguments, I personally feel that there are some things that should simply not be joked about; the case of child rape is one of them. Yet, I respect Rust’s right to free speech, and the Herald’s right to print his work; just don’t call me a “free-speech hater” when I think something is in bad taste and let you know it.

Kendra Hogan, UW sophomore