The Hustler today suggested, as a roundabout defense for their inexcusable opinion article earlier this week, that the goal of Free Speech is discussion. 'Just because you don't agree, don't condemn.' And it is here that I would like to relate a parable.

Under the auspices of "The Hustler Editorial Board," which one can only presume to be on behalf of the "esteemed" publication that claims to represent the Voice of Vanderbilt, has finally committed the same error as the Living Wage Movement. Need proof? http://www.insidevandy.com/

Not everyone supports the living wage.

Perhaps, at another time when I'm feeling more optimistic about Vanderbilt's ability to calmly and rationally discuss this matter, I might elaborate on that statement. I might provide reasons as to why not everyone supports the living wage, explain economic arguments that promote a market wage, or even attempt to cut the emotional heart strings repeatedly tugged by the living wage movement on campus. For now, it is safe to say that those who refuse to acknowledge anything wrong with a radical change - no matter what policy they may endorse, no matter how obvious their solution - are dangerous. That is the mindset of the crusader. The persuader shows how there exists costs, sacrifice, and someone's unhappiness through what they are proposing. Then they show why we should do it anyways.