Both sides have eloquently stated their diametrically opposed rationales in the Hofmann Forest debate. As I read the extensive arguments, it reminded me of 1787 and several important issues the Founding Fathers faced. After several months of arguments behind closed doors, they came up with a three-page document of about 4,300 words that many historians agree, is a wonderful blueprint for governing our country. One of the hallowed principles that has been talked about ever since is «original intent » which literally means what the Founding Fathers intended.

I have not heard nor seen any clarifications of “the original intent” of Dr. Hofmann. I have not heard or read anything about the actual contract. Fortunately or unfortunately, the deciding factor is contract law. Whatever the case, just because something is legal does not mean it is ethical or moral. Slavery was legal before the Emancipation Proclamation, but it certainly wasn’t ethical or moral.

Thus, I would like to hear responses from both sides of this debate, regarding what Dr. Hofmann and his allies said and thought when Hofmann Forest became property of N.C. State. I find the secrecy involved in the negotiations to be disturbing.