According to the good people at Webster's, I give you tolerance: "a sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own."

Nothing within that definition, nor within any of the auxiliary definitions of tolerance, hints at majorities or minorities, groups of any sort, or allegiances thereof. But in today's increasingly politically correct world, tolerance has been skewed far beyond its intended meaning. That much is easily gathered from little more than a cursory glance at the editorial section of this newspaper.

But before delving too far into that, a disclaimer is in order. Those individuals that chalked the Quad with pro-Christian rhetoric on April 14, hours before several hundred potential students took their first and/or final look at this campus, before making the most important decision of their lives thus far, should not have done what they did.

It's my opinion that those individuals that engaged in the chalking did not do so to "exclude" or "offend" any person or subgroup of this university's community; instead, they did so to promote this campus as one in which Christianity was alive and well, and that only. Attempting to convey that message (through the proper medium) is perfectly acceptable and is protected by the First Amendment. But the manner in which this message was transmitted bordered on obnoxious, apparently ran afoul of an obscure university policy and inconvenienced this school's maintenance staff, which was called upon early the morning of April 15 to rinse the chalk from the sidewalks.

However, these difficulties were not the crux of the issue for many - the message itself was.

"I felt more unwelcome than ever before in the home I chose for four years of undergraduate education," wrote Andrew Rigsby ("Chalking shows narrowness," April 18). "There is no room here for people who feel they have the right to force their views upon everyone else, religious or otherwise," wrote Ernie Hatfield ("Quad chalking offensive vandalism, indoctrination," April 18). Dustin Smith called the chalkers "ideological vandals" and "religious fanatics" ("Religious freedom taken to extremes," April 18).

It was the promotion of Christian ideals that it seems that these individuals took umbrage to most seriously. Had the chalkers chosen to coat the campus with fliers bearing the same messages, and thus cooperating with university policy, I have little doubt that the same people would be up in arms, complaining about how they were misrepresented, and crying for tolerance of their views. Therefore the question of an honor code violation is irrelevant; it's a crutch used by critics of the chalking.

Also irrelevant is whether or not such a promotion is representative of this campus, or even of the Christians on this campus; any group could have taken the initiative to promote its particular belief platform, attempting to characterize this campus as a pro-(insert issue here) campus. That's the beauty of free speech.

I am sorry that these individuals, and those for whom they may speak, disagree with the messages outlined on the Quad or were offended by them. And I understand what kind of image the chalking could suggest to potential students.

But whether or not Christians comprise the majority of the students on this campus is not important, their beliefs are just as worthy of "tolerance" as those of the minority. The idea of "tolerance" is not intended to preserve the beliefs of a few against the beliefs of many; it's a two-way street.

The same individuals that beg for tolerance of their minority beliefs should be held accountable for the tolerance of majority views. It seems asinine, and very much a double standard, for one to advocate tolerance and criticize another's use of the freedom of speech in the same breath.

Was the chalking on the Quad overzealous? Probably. But is it appropriate for an individual or group to promote the values in which that it believes? Absolutely. This was not, by any means, "indoctrination," as Hatfield wrote.