The question of faculty bias at CU raised by a study of CampusReform.org ("Group targets CU profs' Obama donations," Aug. 16) is important for three reasons.

First, universities by definition should attempt to be places where different ideas are debated, examined, and explored. This simply does not happen when there is only one perspective of reality. When all the voices that are speaking carry the same message, there will be no stimulating debate. That is an opportunity lost for the students.

Second, if the study is reasonably accurate, it represents a large variance to Colorado political views. If the faculty were to have a similar lack of statistical diversity of blacks, women, or other statistically significant groups, it would be cause to evaluate hiring practices. Maybe they just couldn't find those qualified conservative professors to hire.

Third, I have been a Colorado taxpayer for 30 years, the father of a CU graduate and two current students. It seems like I should have some say in the product being purchased with my money.

I have direct feedback from multiple courses and people as to the political activism taking place within classes that is not course-related. I find this objectionable on several levels: the professor is not providing the teaching services they are paid to provide; and, the classroom is not an equal participatory situation where the student may voice his opinion without fear of repercussion. Imagine a workplace where the boss did the same thing.

With the cost of a CU education costing $100,000 per student including state funding, these are important issues.

R. Frank Cantor

Boulder

NYC MOSQUE SHOULD LOCATE AWAY FROM GROUND ZERO

The First Amendment to our Constitution asserts that "we the people" have a right to practice religion freely. Few countries in the world live up to this concept as well as the United States does.

And while I believe in our First Amendment dearly, I think building a mosque at Ground Zero -- the untimely final resting place for innocent American civilians -- is a slap in our face. We are a religiously tolerant nation. But enthusiastically encouraging building a place of worship within spitting distance of where thousands perished doesn't reflect such tolerance.

I do not think that all terrorists are Muslim or all Muslims are terrorists. Nor do I think that al-Qaeda is synonymous with the religion of Islam in general. Legality of the action is not the issue. Of course Muslims have the right to a house of worship in this country.

No logical person would argue otherwise. But is it a coincidence that historically, towns or villages that surrendered to Islam would have their houses of worship destroyed and converted into mosques? Not always willingly surrendered, I might add.

The goal of radical groups like al-Qaeda is to have the rest of the world submit and conform to Islam -- extremist Islam. The site at Ground Zero represents -- to those who committed or supported the atrocities of 9/11 -- a victory against Western civilization. America stands for everything radical Islam rejects: equality, justice, and freedom for all.

More innocent lives were lost in the name of extremist Islam than at Pearl Harbor, and our response is to allow them to build a monument to their religion on our hallowed ground. History has a funny way of repeating itself.

Ruby Rosenthal

Boulder