As a civil rights team adviser and government teacher, I felt obligated to answer Ike Morgan’s op-ed commentary, “Civil rights team project unmasked,” published May 1 in the Bangor Daily addressing the recent civil rights conference in Augusta.

Morgan writes, “… I find it disturbing … that so many fine young people should be subjected to such bias by adults in education.”

Students choose to participate in state civil rights teams, and it was also voluntary to be involved in the sharing of ideas in Augusta. Morgan condemns the recent statewide conference on civil rights as an example of using state funds to “subject” students to, and “perpetrate” destructive ideas onto children. Subjugation? Hardly, unless my understanding of that word is faulty.

The whole point of a democratic society with free speech is to have a free market of ideas from which the citizenry can choose. Students choose (freedom again) from more than 20 diverse workshops, and none of the ones I attended were preaching any dogma except accepting others for who they are (evidently a dangerous idea for Morgan).

The author suggests that students were overrun with symbolism portraying non-whites, gays and women as hopeless victims. I can easily bring to mind a long and storied history of discrimination and terrorism against each of these groups, and not so long ago. The vestiges of this discrimination and outright murder (lynchings) are certainly still with us. What is wrong with trying to end violence toward certain discriminated-against segments of our citizenry, Mr. Morgan?

The author states with revulsion and condemnation that gay citizens, Native American people and victims of sexual discrimination are pushing for more laws protecting them. Protecting people from harassment and discrimination is a bad thing?

This author shows his inability to differentiate between thought and action when he says that hate laws limit free thought. First of all, hate laws serve to limit violence toward certain persons. This author disagrees with protecting people’s lives from racist violence. Jefferson’s first freedom was to life. Does Morgan disagree? Secondly, these laws limit action, not thought.

In condemning this conference, this person could have exercised his rights by leaving, because it seems as though he would have been more comfortable outside the conference with the religious right and their academically feeble attempts to paint the gay community as evil and destructive.

Morgan’s commentary stimulated a wonderful discussion in our weekly civil rights meeting, and that’s what it’s all about. In America everyone can speak their mind, and each person forms their own opinions. He reminded us that we have a lot of work to do in creating an open, accepting society.

Chris White is a Civil Rights Team adviser and social studies teacher in Waterville.