Personally, I feel that the minority issues at this school are a lot more complicated than all of you seem to think. In my eyes, this minority group isn't inclusive at all, but rather, an exclusive club that serves only to African Americans, Hispanics/Latinos, and Native Americans. I said this earlier in the year during the initial controversy, and the club members I spoke to were fairly narrow-minded themselves, telling me that I'm a Jew--my skin pigment is light, so I don't feel intolerance. Unlike all of you seem to think, the general student consensus is that intolerance was a lot more limited before the formation of this club. I for one felt that people were judging me based on my culture a lot more after this club began. Before coming to Uni, I came across a lot of anti-Semitism--peers of mine even sometimes told me that I was going to burn in hell because of my religious beliefs; in rare instances, people even told Holocaust jokes to me--I've felt intolerance. I never felt any of this pressure at Uni. Even tense situations are dealt with responsibly by the students--the Jews and Muslims in our class have even had incredibly productive discussions about the Israel/Palestine debate. The point is, Uni students aren't bigotted racists by any stretch of the imagination. We function just outside of the mainstream, where we all tend to get along fairly well. As the editorial mentions, there have been breakdowns in the system--obviously, we don't deny that--but for the most part, Uni and its students are some of the most tolerant out there. This is what you all refused to recognize in our editorial. We don't oppose a minority support group, per se, but in my eyes at least, this particular one is functioning in a way that is facilitating more hatred and tension than there was prior to its existence. Ms. Patton pointed out that the writers of the editorial didn't take a proper look at the issues. Perhaps the rest of you should consider your own arguments first as well.