Ruth Malhotra personifies everything I detest. At the Georgia Institute of Technology, she’s a chairwoman of the College Republicans and works to make the group embody everything the severe right stands for. In March, Malhotra headed to court to fight for her rights and the rights of others fighting the same ugly battle. Some lawsuits have admirable ends: Brown v. Board of Education, or Roe v. Wade. But this lawsuit isn’t aimed at expanding the rights of a minority or the oppressed. This lawsuit covers 77 percent of the American population, according to religioustolerance.org, and claims to speak for all Christianity. Malhotra is going to court for the right to be intolerant. That’s right — she wants to be able to protest and condemn everyone who doesn’t conform to her very narrow world view. Homosexuals, feminists, other minority groups — some might call her an equal opportunity hater. She claims her Christian faith is threatened and oppressed by legislation and policies protecting gay and minority rights. She says her ability to speak out against homosexuality and other “non-Christian” groups is oppressed by the University speech code.Malhotra has called the Georgia Tech’s Gay Pride Alliance a “sex club” and has said it is “ludicrous” for Georgia Tech to help fund the group.

Now, my knee-jerk reaction is to call this girl a crazy, Bush-worshiping, right-wing nut who could seriously use a course on general human decency. Basically, she’s suing for the right to protest other people and their most deeply held beliefs, by using her rude grasp of “Christianity” and fighting all those nasty infringements on her rights — like groups she doesn’t have to join and people she doesn’t have to like.

But then again, maybe, in the bowels of this lawsuit, something correct is glimmering. Free speech is one of our most valuable rights as Americans and it includes the right to disagree or express unpopular opinions. If that’s what Malhotra wants, maybe she’s on to something.

The lawsuit claims Georgia Tech “actively censors disfavored expression on campus and that the Tech environment ‘squelches’ First Amendment freedoms through policies outlined in the Student Code of Conduct and the Housing Community Guide,” according to an article at the Georgia Tech website. I’ve read some of Georgia Tech’s speech code. It’s not unlike WSU’s — it protects minorities and their rights without overtly banning free discussion.

But maybe something needed is coming to light in this lawsuit, and other lawsuits like it across the nation. Not that it’s okay to harass or harm anyone who’s not like you, but that a university — such as Georgia Tech or WSU — should facilitate free speech, including the right to speak freely when you disagree. Perhaps universities and other like institutions have gone too far in becoming “politically correct,” to the point where simply disagreeing can label someone an intolerant pig.

Shouldn’t the point of college be to learn; to disagree as intelligent individuals, to carry on rational conversations, try to understand your opponent and to make compromises? I don’t think sending nasty letters to the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Allies group will solve anything — but neither will sending nasty letters to Campus Crusade for Christ or the College Republicans. Perhaps working toward a common goal of discussing, questioning and understanding would be an appropriate addition to the speech code. Feelings are easy to hurt, and just because your feelings get hurt shouldn’t give you the right to sue — whichever side you’re on. A university should prepare us for the real world and the hard things out there — there are enough unanswerable questions. If we can work together on campus, be it Georgia Tech or WSU, to solve those with an answer, it would bring us all one step closer to tolerance. By relaxing tolerance and political correctness standards, maybe we can find more common ground in the end. College should further free speech and diversity, even when you don’t agree. All groups should have their say and be able to further their goals when working in a socially acceptable fabric that gives both sides the chance to speak.

As for Malhotra — I still think she’s a nut.