In America, we value the ideas of free speech, respect for opposing views and intelligent debate. Ezra Hood has very strong views, and that is commendable. I would love to see more people of all political stances voice their opinion with such passion.

I personally feel, however, that he is absolutely terrible at articulating his view. Mr. Hood would probably make much more convincing points if he refrained from personal attacks. In my articles I do satire opposing opinions, but I generally avoid attacking the people behind them. It is one thing to call an idea “baloney,” but it is very different to call the writers “kooks.” I am not saying he cannot be, or that it shouldn’t have been, printed. I am merely offering my observation.

Many people disagreed with redistricting and hoped (as conservatives would if liberals had passed an unfavorable law) the Supreme Court would overturn it. Like it or not, that is the way the system was designed. Legislatures make the laws, the courts test their validity. No one is debating that this is a Republican state. They are debating if the new districting disenfranchises minority voters, who will not change their views simply because Republicans outnumber them. Mr. Hood may not agree, but this is a valid position, and he should do a better job attacking the rationale behind it. Insulting an idea won’t make illogical criticism seem plausible. As long as we are attacking people, I see Mr. Hood as a backward thinker bent on perpetuating antiquated social norms by paying off under-informed voters with tax-cuts they will see little benefit from. Of course, even that personal attack is more issue oriented than Mr. Hood’s provincial and un-evolved platitudes.

— Brian Chatman, sophomore news-editorial journalism major.