I jumped to conclusions. In my post below about Hate Speech at UNC, I linked to an article by Professor Adams from UNC Wilmington who wrote an article about a professor who sent her students an email criticizing “heterosexist” comments by a student.

When I read “heterosexist” comments and that all the student said, according to Professor Adams, is that he, the student, found homosexuality disgusting and that it went against his Christian morals. I jumped to a number of conclusions because of a similar experience in college.

But, Tom, a commenter to that post, wrote:

Associate Professor Adams assumes (making an ASS of U and ME) that the student was reprimanded merely for expressing his opinions on homosexuality. Now, this may have been case, but Mr. Adams does not see fit to provide us with adequate facts to make this determination. Instead of being inflamed with indignation, as is no doubt Mr. Adams’ intent, I am merely filled with questions that would have been answered by a well-written column.

Upon further reflection, Tom is right. Professor Adams should have said what the class was, what the discussion was, etc. The student might have enrolled himself into a controversial class so he could throw bombs. While the student may have made valid comments, we don’t know if he placed himself in that situation intentionally.

More facts would be helpful.