Dear Debra J. Saunders of the San Francisco Chronicle,

Thank you for your column, "SF State -- Hecklers' Paradise," published Feb. 8. Though it sheds more light on the important First Amendment issues looming over SF State, you only addressed part of the story.

Last summer the General Union of Palestine Students, GUPS, completed the process to send a mural to President Robert Corrigan for final approval. Associated Students Inc. had approved the mural through a democratic student government process by a 6-2 vote.

Corrigan blocked the mural from going up by immediately placing a moratorium on all new murals, stating the mural is “conflict-centered” and it “runs counter to values that we hope have taken deep root at San Francisco State, among them, pride in one’s own culture expressed without hostility or denigration of another.”

In an October meeting, Corrigan reportedly called mural supporters "bigots," which is the same term some people give to say ... the Minutemen, which the Republicans have also rallied for on campus. The Golden Gate [X]press supports this expression as well.

A character in the mural, Handala, by acclaimed Arab cartoonist Naji al-Ali is shown holding a pen that resembles a sword in one hand and a key in the other. The key represents the Palestinians’ perceived right of return to what they deem their homeland. Some say that right of return represents the destruction of Israel. Handala is a refugee child and is a used in many different contexts, depending on the specific circumstance and the viewer. He is usually depicted as poor, with his hands held behind his back, sometimes he is shown throwing rocks.

There's no difference between the offensive speech, art and symbolism of the Republicans stomping on flags containing the symbol for Allah or a Palestinian mural calling for a right to return in the eyes of the Constitution. They are both protected expressions.

[X]press recommends that the Student Organization Hearing Panel, the Office of Student Programs and Leadership Development, ASI, and Corrigan dismiss any notion of sanctions against the Republicans and fairly reconsider the mural in this context.

All stakeholders should drop double standards.

In the lead of your column you asked:

"What is San Francisco State University teaching that makes student leaders think that if they don't like what other students say, they can use student organizations to stifle those with dissenting views? Do they even know about the First Amendment?"

Excellent questions.

The story didn't start with the Republicans, it started when Corrigan limited the free speech of GUPS and the democratic process of ASI. What is he teaching us? I, and many on this campus, suggest that Corrigan set a poor example by limiting expression when he and/or his advisers didn't like what the mural had to say.

Corrigan has set the wrong example and ASI mistakenly followed his lead. Again, what did he teach by doing so? He demonstrated that it is acceptable to use a "hecklers' veto," as you said, "by punishing students on the basis of how harshly, violently or unreasonably others might react to their words" or ideas, demonstrations, speech, symbols, etc.

Ironically, following this unfortunate example, it would now seem hypocritical if the SOHP and Corrigan do not pass sanctions against the Republicans. This is convoluted due to our president first limiting the free expression of GUPS.

It is time for everyone to step back, think and correct these mistakes.

As a respected member of the San Francisco and national community, I trust that you will research and report this complex and important story that strikes at the very foundation of freedom of expression and education in our country.

Ms. Saunders, since you care enough to comment on events at our campus, please help us encourage a truly open marketplace of ideas in the grand tradition of open debate, discussion and democracy at SF State.

I eagerly await your response.

Ian Thomas
Editor of The Golden Gate [X]press