Letters to the Editor

Both sides of evolution debate lack substance

Dear Editor,

I’m uncomfortable to the point of protest. On Thursday, I witnessed one of the most anti-educational, pseudo-scientific events in my long and traveled life. It amounted to a super-slick revival tent meeting in the modern setting of the Auditorium.

One of the speaker’s central points seemed to be that while he respected and practiced science, he found evolution to not be scientifically respectable because it is riddled with lies and incongruities. He was remarkably facile in citing evolution’s “flaws,” using out-of-context quotes of respected scientists and selective, often questionable, data for his conclusions. Hitler was adduced as an advocate of evolution.

In defense of his biblical literalism he recited polished, Jesuitical rationalizations in rapid fire delivery that made it impossible to thoughtfully parse them.

Obviously, the speaker had worked diligently in developing this theatrical one-man show. Because he had prepared his pitch so assiduously, it was an unfair anti-debate when self-selected, less-prepared questioners were given a moment at the audience mic which was largely controlled by the solitary speaker.

He claimed to have debated the best of the evolutionist camp; but why not here? At a university, that’s what is needed on such troubling issues. Is a Darwinist next? My guess, from a few “exit poll” chats and a general overview of the audience from standing at the rear, is that the audience was largely from outside the university community, and came prepared to cheer their champion on. There even seemed to be scattered cheerleaders in yellow T-shirts.

The event in effect denounced the best established scientific thinking and biblical scholarship. On such a troubling, divisive issue, Kent State has an obligation to provide a balanced, or better yet proportionate balance, of consensual science and thought.

Sex offender will always pose a risk to children

Dear Editor,

Revulsion. Disgust. These are words that come to mind when I think of a sex offender. It confounds me when people make the argument that sexual offenders are just like everyone else. They’re not. And so it really burns me up when people like Shelley Blundell, and others around the campus, rise up to defend someone like Carl Neighorn. As you can see, I have no reservations about dropping his name and exposing him.

Let me tackle Miss Blundell’s article point by point. First, just because Neighorn is “currently on the lowest ranking of sexual offenders,” that doesn’t make him Santa Claus. A sex offender at any level is still a sex offender.

Second, Neighorn isn’t just some horny high-schooler who hooked up with his younger girlfriend. He’s a pedophile, convicted of performing oral sex on a teenage boy while he slept. So Miss Blundell asks us what there is to fear, but yet she herself states that over half of pedophiles repeat their behavior. In fact, contrary to the belief that his conviction was an isolated incident, three other men came forward at Neighorn’s trial and accused him of molesting them during their days in the Boy Scouts.

Finally, Miss Blundell states that we all have a right to live in a safe environment. Well, I agree. My fianc‚ and I live in Allerton Apartments, and we are expecting a baby boy. I should not have to live in fear just because I share an apartment complex with a convicted criminal who violated a young boy. Let Neighorn attend the university, but do not house him with families that have children. I do not want to take the chance that a child, perhaps mine, could tempt Neighorn’s inner demons.

Some students and staff members are claiming that because Neighorn doesn’t work with juveniles, he’s not a risk. Well, he lives with them. Which is worse? Kent State should be ashamed of the behavior of some of its students and members of its staff.

Antonio DeGaetano

Sophomore architecture major