I’d like to express my utmost disgust with the person or persons involved in the defamation of Speaker Mike Glynne on the wall of E-building in the L/L complex. Hundreds of bias-related incidents occur every school year at UVM, so some students might ask why I’m focusing on this one particular incident. The answer is twofold: the lack of criticism the act has sustained by the UVM gay community and the lack of support shown for Speaker Glynne. I still realize that most bias-related incidents at UVM go unnoticed and undefended; something I consider to be a serious fault in the culture of UVM. The person or persons who vandalized the L/L wall may or may not have been members of the LGBTQA community, but in light of the recent American Red Cross resolution debated two weeks ago in the Senate, the act certainly supported their views against Glynne after he cast the tie-breaking vote to shoot down the resolution. Obviously, the person or persons responsible for the vandalism do not represent the entire gay community. Nor does the gay community sanction such actions taken by individuals. However, the LGBTQA has not yet condemned the act as inappropriate and disrespect?ful – so why has the LGBTQA community been so silent? In order to maintain its support for the debate, the LGBTQA community of UVM should express its disapproval of this threatening, below-the-belt tactic against Speaker Glynne. It’s also interesting to note that this act does not classify as a hate crime because it does not represent an act attacking an identity like race, gender, age or sexual orientation. Instead, it attacks an ideology. However, hate crimes are designed to attack individuals, and not necessarily specific actions. In fact, it’s my opinion that Speaker Glynne has been unfairly pegged for more than just his recent tie-breaking Senate vote; he’s charged with being a “heterosexist.” This crime attacked Speaker Glynne’s “heterosexism,” and not his action – not classifying this crime as a hate-crime doesn’t mean it’s any less hurtful or detrimental to the entire debate. This term – the modern equivalent to being called a white supremacist – was thoughtfully chosen to evoke deep feelings among both gay and straight students because even straight students bristle at the thought of being publicly seen as a homophobe here at Goovy Uvy. Though it does not defame Glynne’s identity – straight, gay, black or white – it attacks a way of thinking; one that Glynne may or may not support. It’s also interesting to point out how quickly a person or group of people goes from the victims in a situation – victims of being made to feel unwelcome, threatened, discriminated against – to becoming the perpetrators. The responsible party was clearly disappointed with Speaker Glynne’s tie-breaking vote, but chose to publicly defame the person and not the action. Let’s face it: it’s human nature to hate losing a fight. In fact, it’s also human tendency that after one loses, to at?tack the system that allowed him or her to lose. Case and point-Speaker Glynne constitutionally and bravely cast the deciding vote in a three-hour long debate. If you’re going to call Speaker Glynne a heterosexist shithead, plaster demeaning slogans on walls, you should defame all other 15 Senators who voted “Nay” to the American Red Cross Bill. Or better yet, grow up and realize that a few words in red spray paint have hurt your cause, lowered your integrity and made you look like the shithead.