I interpret this much differently. The redaction (and the lack of consequences imposed by the Institute against this dangerous bigot) is more likely motivated by a paternalistic and patronizing attitude on the part of the administration which insists that the poor, benighted people of [redacted] are naturally superstitious and violent--and can't be expected to treat other people decently.

Which country it actually is has been covered up in order to suppress open discussion about whether or not this attitude is appropriate. I suspect the student is Muslim and that "religion" is part of the smokescreen.

I'm inclined to share Sportin's interpretation.

Any potential discussion on homophobia motivated by religion, especially marginalized religions, is avoided even by the most "progressive" colleges.

Oh, this post took half a week to write because I kept on getting distracted/drunk/interrupted while doing it. So, yeah, long and short of it, SL, that's what I meant, except a little different.

I don't know where this person is from, but, yeah, it's the idea that other countries/cultures can be judged on the same value system as we are. Whether the idea is that they're just too regressive/stupid to live up to that value system (as you think the LGBT Club thinks) or that this one individual who's not representative of that country (as I think the LGBT Club thinks), the idea that they have/want to play by the same rules as Americans do is still there.

Either way, I'm looking for a positive way to interpret this, other than a general "I'm sure their intentions were good."

Muslim? I don't know. From the sound of the letter, it's not an English speaking country.

Alex, is it possible that they redacted the nationality because the student responsible for the homophobic email is the only student from [redacted]--or one of a very few?

If the purpose of the club in sharing the email was to draw attention to homophobic threats and reactions, yet they couldn't or didn't want to single out the specific aggressor in a public forum, it's possible that leaving the identity of his country in the response would have made it easy for other students to guess who it was.

The mail could have just as easily come from a Latin American country, or even west bumfuck in hicksville america.

There are plenty of western cultures where that attitude prevails. All I have to do is drive about an hour or so in any direction, and be able to find that particular attitude.

I mean, hasn't the Kern mess taught you anything? We are still hated here in america. We do not need to look elswhere at all.

If the individual, speaking from the perspective of his country, is made "seek" and has sent the email he should anticipate that it could be quoted. I think this GLBT club has bent too far backwards. Did they even inform the university of this potential hate crime participant? Have there not been enough tragities on campus from unhinged, isolated, (foreign & domestic) hate filled students?

I agree that the message from the student should be referred to the proper authorities at MIT. They should be given an opportunity to handle this matter responsibly with a view to avoiding violence.

If another school in this country had been fully apprised of a situation, perhaps a life would have been spared if they had acted responsibly.

There are a number of cultures that could have produced the individual that wrote the message, and my guess is that they redacted the name of "redactia" to avoid identifying the student.

I do not buy that we have to be culturally accepting of certain parctices. Se certainly were not accepting of Boer Culture as far as Aparthied in South Africa, and rightfully so.

@shakay & Robert: Yes, the school was notified. See Sara's post (link at the beginning of Alex's post) for info on that.

I want to point out the gender pronouns Alex mentions. I think they probably ran with male pronouns just because if someone is coming from a foreign country that promotes violence against gays, that same society probably promotes violence against women. When was the last time you heard of an African/Middle Eastern/South-Central American woman sending threatening e-mails about "beating gays?"

As for nationality - it's the same thing I was taught in journalism class. Is it necessary for the story? No. It's not. The story is "Student sends threatening e-mail" It doesn't need "Albanian student sends threatening e-mail" or "Albanian female student sends threatening e-mail." By adding the adjectives you're just providing extraneous information that'll muddy up the point of the release/article.

FYI - I had to look "redacted" up in the dictionary. Just so I'm not the only one scratching my head, it means "edited."