Uncle Raisin visits KU

Kutztown, PA First, let me respond to the memo statements by President Cevallos from September 24, about "demonstrators" on campus. As Cevallos suggests: http://www.kutztown.edu/about/presidential/statements/letters/demonstrations.aspx "Following any other course of action gives the demonstrators exactly what they seek: confrontation, publicity, and lawsuit potential." How does he know this? To the allegation of confrontation, I am confused why he would conclude this. When has this ever been problematic? Publicity? Surely, if Cevallos would have known the individuals as I did, he would know they all bore their own expense and went on their tour (KU being one of their stops) prayerfully and with demonstrable concern for those to whom they sought to minister. If results are any indicator, the "lawsuit potential" that supposedly crowns the groups motives, should be rethought as a business technique. Does Cevallos know how much monetary gain has resulted from any law suit? Has anyone from the group ever brought suit where there was not cause? For those times that suit has been brought, has it been a reasonable, or the only, course of action available? Even still, If Cevallos knew the answers to these questions he wouldn't draw the conclusion that implies a derogatory image of the "protestors." Secondly, it is my observation that this group is not properly labeled as "demonstrators" (or "protestors"). A "demonstrator" is AGAINST something; while this group seeks to exalt ideals, and advocated FOR, among other things, the humanity of the preborn children that are killed by abortion. This is a distinction that sheds a critical light on what the officials at KU are trying to do. Cevallos, and his associates, obfuscate and, with vice, wrongly paint the visitors as villains. This obfuscation leads me to my past point. What happened to the mantra; "I may not agree with you, but I will fight for your right to say it?" It is no wonder to this writer why KU (and by extension, Cevallos) has received a red light rating by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), see http://www.thefire.org/index.php/schools/1391?PHPSESSID= for details. The only experience I need to point to as affirmation of my point of view is the removal of most of the flyers I placed on cars in the parking lot drawing attention to this case story. Why the need to remove a flyer when the courts have stated over and over again that is legal expressive activity guaranteed by the 1st Amendment? Just what is Cevallos and KU afraid of? Uncle Raisin Editor