If so, he was really covering his tracks. In the preface to his letter, which is printed on page 5, the anonymous writer refers to the risk involved in his speaking out about the GLBA/New World Coalition quad display and its dismantling, and consequently, his speaking out against the Coalition of Angry Students' handling of the issues and events. But the writer does not define what is at stake if he were to come out of the closet, so to speak. Since we can't ask him directly, we'll try to define it for him.

The writer said that he aims to preserve his anonymity so that he may protect his parents. We suspect that this is just part of the reason, or an excuse: clearly, he wants to protect himself. Thus the writer took the safe way out and took the chance of our automatic rejection of his unsigned letter, which is in accordance with our editorial policy.

That notwithstanding, the writer has a valid point about students' need to question the causes and effects of goings on at Bates. We think that self-evaluation is necessary in making sensible changes and growth.

Though the writer is not a member of the Coalition of Angry Students, and he has an outsider's perspective, he is evidently emotionally attached to the issues he's writing about in emotion-charged, mean prose. That's fine. But what's not okay is his use of sarcasm, which takes away from his argument, to the extent of leaving an impression not of reasonableness, but of his blatant disrespect for people who express ideas he reviles.

That aside, the writer, like members of the Coalition of Angry Students, is a member of the Bates "community." He, and others who share his viewpoint, are affected by what is happening on campus. He, whether he is homophobic or not, is afraid of being perceived as homophobic for being critical, even if he feels that his criticisms are honest and valid, and even if he is not homophobic (and who's to say?)

We understand the writer's fright; that's why we're giving the writer an opportunity to be heard. We, like him, know that there is much at stake if one is publically analytical and critical of a popular sentiment, especially if it is carried in a campus-wide movement led by vocal and mobile peers. The difference is that we, like the Coalition of Angry Students and GLBA, choose to take risks by addressing issues forthrightly, whereas the writer plays it safe, chancing whether he gets his views heard in this newspaper.

We're guessing that he's wondered about what we're wondering about, too:

Who can safely speak out at Bates?

Who at this college has the courage to stand up for what (s)he believes in?

Who ever said that speaking out against anything was safe?

We don't have an answer to the first two questions. But the answer to the last question is, emphatically, no one.

The lesson: No one is going to speak out for you and your views if you yourself don't take a (sometimes public, sometimes uncomfortable) stand on them. Taking that stand sometimes takes courage. The writer is halfway there.