ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Letter: A challenge for Mike Hulett

One can’t have it both ways – either you believe in listening to both sides of an argument or not. The purpose of the First Amendment is to allow free discussion and debate of issues and CRT is a legitimate point of view that deserves discussion like any other.

A person holds a letter with the text "letter to the editor" overlaid on the image.
We are part of The Trust Project.

In his June 19 column Mike Hulett argues in favor of unfettered free speech, yet ironically he also wants to shut down any discussion of critical race theory, saying it’s too dangerous to teach. Clearly, Hulett only favors free speech for conservative points of view.

One can’t have it both ways – either you believe in listening to both sides of an argument or not. The purpose of the First Amendment is to allow free discussion and debate of issues and CRT is a legitimate point of view that deserves discussion like any other.

Therefore, I would like to challenge Mr. Hulett. How about working with the NDSU Northern Plains Ethics Institute, the League for Women Voters, or any similar independent group to sponsor a fair and moderated debate on the pros and cons of critical race theory? I look forward to observing his actual commitment to free speech.

Donald Miller lives in Fargo.

This letter does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Forum's editorial board nor Forum ownership.

What to read next
Linda Thorson, state director of Concerned Women for America, writes, "It is malpractice to refuse anyone the medical help needed in all circumstances, including a spontaneous abortion."
Peter d’Errico, a professor emeritus of legal studies for the University of Massachusetts Amherst, writes, "March 10, 2023, will be the 200th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision that started the watered-down idea of 'tribal sovereignty' as the basis for a U.S. claim of domination over Indigenous nations. Johnson v. McIntosh, an 1823 property law decision written by Chief Justice John Marshall, said the United States owns Indigenous lands 'discovered' by Christian colonizers!"
The proposed Respect for Marriage Act, "does not respect marriage," Moorhead resident Ken Sims writes. "This bill will enshrine a false definition of marriage everywhere and will threaten the religious beliefs of many Americans."
Deborah K. Seaberg of Detroit Lakes, Minn., responds to a writer asking for the release of President Biden's tax returns.