House Bill 347, which passed earlier this month and will eliminate compulsory private club memberships, is a good first step in this process. However, it cannot be counterbalanced with a bill that moves us two steps backward. H.B. 347 helps Utah look forward in the same way that SB 187 will serve to keep Utah looking into the past.

Discrimination pervades many facets of the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning individuals on campus, making it difficult for many of them to feel safe and work effectively.

All human cost considered, the new database promises to do more good for Utahns than harm, especially if the state further refines the system to somehow allow defense attorneys access on a case-by-case basis.

In response to Jeremy Thompson's article, ("Sustainability fee passes temporarily; ASUU must reconcile versions of bill," March 11), I would like to address a few issues.

In Southern Utah, there are several pending lawsuits in response to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's approval of releasing a Russian beetle on a weed management expedition.

S.B. 78 strikes a good balance. Employers and other property owners are still free to prohibit guns inside their premises while law-abiding gun owners are free to store their weapons secured and out of sight in their vehicles.

I find it alarming that Patrick Reimherr is so willing to actively push a fee increase without proven student support. If, as he says, broad student support does exist, then he ought to have no problem with a general referendum on the issue.

We have been reading for months now about fees being increased to improve sustainability. Today, I read another article in The Chronicle, ("Sustainability fee passes temporarily; ASUU must reconcile versions of bill," March 11). But what are these so-called sustainable projects that this money would go toward?

If everyone blindly believed the rhetoric of Bill O'Reilly or the extreme claims of the online newspaper The Huffington Post, our country would be extremely divided and misinformed. This is why taking these pundits with a grain of salt is imperative.

While Passi has a blatant agenda, scientists have an objective view on matters, basing their decisions and understanding on data and information. Ironically, Passi is entering the field as an opponent to his own career.