To MSU President Samuel L. Stanley:
 
We sign this letter asking you to keep Dr. Stephen Hsu in his position as VP for Research and Innovation and as a sign of support for Dr. Hsu.
 
The charges of racism and sexism against Hsu are unequivocally false and the purported evidence supporting these charges ranges from innuendo and rumor to outright lies. (See attached letters for details - https://sites.google.com/view/petition-letter-stephen-hsu/additional-letters) We highlight that there is zero concrete evidence that Hsu has performed his duties as VP in an unfair or biased manner. Therefore, removing Hsu from his post as VP would be to capitulate to rumor and character assassination.
 
President Stanley, you have the unique opportunity to show  the leadership required  to guide this great institution of higher learning through a difficult situation during this pivotal moment in history. The power is in your hands to reaffirm free inquiry and free expression as the core values of the academic institutions and show how they align with the other values to which we are all committed and have spent time and energy promoting. The voices demanding Hsu's removal are exactly wrong in pitting diversity and inclusion against free inquiry and freedom of speech. Instead, true diversity flourishes best under conditions of free inquiry, because such a philosophy demands that everyone have a seat at the table and that views be evaluated on the basis of cogency of the supporting reasoning and strength and internal consistency of the accumulated evidence rather than the identity, power, number, or vociferousness of the people expressing them. Free inquiry is the most democratic and most inclusive method of engaging with the world.
 
A university must simultaneously uphold the ideals of inclusion and freedom of inquiry. With respect to the latter, if faculty feel uncomfortable investigating “difficult” questions—the answers to which may or may not agree with a particular belief or view, and may even be unsettling—then the faculty will eventually stop asking those questions. In turn, the university will cease to be a leader in addressing the most difficult problems that society faces. Ideology will become the major force in the faculty’s scholarship.
 
To remove Hsu for holding controversial views, or for inquiring about controversial topics, or for simply talking to controversial personalities, based on the number of people demanding he be removed and the intensity of their demands would be to capitulate to a pre-enlightenment approach to the academy – and to incentivize the exclusion and ostracism of minority positions. It would also set a dangerous precedent, inconsistent with the fundamental principles of modern enlightened higher education.
 
Professor Hsu is a thoughtful, decent, and compassionate human being who approaches complex questions with honesty and openness. To allow Hsu to be removed by falsehoods and innuendos would be to concede that there is no place in the academy for someone who has committed no crime or injustice toward any individual, but merely disagrees with the prevailing orthodoxy.
 
There is no question that the push for racial justice and equal rights has been and continues to be a noble and important cause. In the narrow case, removing Hsu from his position will in no way advance this cause. In the general case, removing Hsu will do permanent damage to the university and will undermine the core values that we must uphold.