Thanks for writing. First of all, I am not crazy. In fact, I am perfectly sane, just as you are. I also don't think that you are old-fashioned. You just have to reconsider your counter-example (I will elaborate later). Assuming that you read the threads following my article, I am sure most of the points you raised have been addressed. However, there are more issues I want to discuss. It seems like there is a bias in your assessment of Ahmadinejad and Rushdie. These two speakers are both controversial, and I was not against the invitation of Rushdie on our campus, nor was I for Ben+Jerry.

As much as Ahmadinejad's beliefs, misinterpreted or not, offend our Western culture, you do realize there were students, specifically Muslim students, who were offended by Rushdie's presence here in Vanderbilt. By writing "Satanic Verses," his "blasphemies" against the Qur'an and Muhammad were very real and shamelessly hurtful to an entire social group. So, once could possibly see why Khomeini sent out a Fawta against Rushdie- because of his heretical and offensive remarks that mocked their cultural roots. There is also no doubt that he had all the right to criticize a religion. In fact, we need more people like him who can surpass our ideological taboos and enlighten us in such fresh, bold ways.

My point is that, if we can invite someone like Rushdie, who, to some, represent pure evil (most of Muslim world) and, to some, a respectable iconoclast (most of the Western world), why can we not invite someone like Ahmadinejad, who ALSO, to some, represent pure evil (most of the Western world) and, to some, a respectable iconoclast (most of the Muslim world). But Ahmadinejad probably will deny the existence of homosexuality in his country, and will deny the Holocaust. So perhaps he will be too controversial for you.

Personally, I see myself as a part of the Western world and realize that Ahmadinejad is a "dangerous and repressive bigot". However, there are those in this world and even in our campus who believe that Rushdie is also a "dangerous and repressive bigot". (I am not saying Muslims in our campus are the same as Islamic fundamentalists) Similarly, there were probably few students who felt that Rushdie's lecture would seemingly "pollute the ears of Vanderbilt students with the rhetoric of dispassionate disapproval." Are their sensitivities not important? Just because the Muslim community in Vanderbilt is not as influential as that of Judeo-Christianity, are their feelings trivial and ours inviolable? If they (Muslim students) had their share of sacrifice, why can't we sacrifice our sensitivities for the institution of free speech- just as they so bravely did? Just because we live in a Western world, must we listen to pro-Western ideas that we have all already accepted and silence those who dare to deviate all in the name of hate speech? Are we that afraid and stupid that Ahmadinejad's lecture would somehow corrupt our feeble minds and conjure up sympathy for his cause? If that is the case, we are being plainly hypocritical, ignorant, egocentric, fearful, provincial and thus, completely contrary to the spirit of this University.

Let's put it this way. If Rushdie were involved in this debate, I am sure that he would have supported Ahmadinejad's lecture in Vanderbilt- without a doubt. If Gore Vidal were involved, he would have simply called for Ahmadinejad's impeachment. Now, if Ben and Jerry were involved, I am sure they would have given us free ice-cream to shut our mouths and to end this debate for good (It's a joke, please don't over-react and write another article about it).

There's a simple solution that I think will make everyone happy. If you don't like a lecturer, then don't buy a ticket for it, and don't attend. You are not being forced to attend, as in the case of the play Keely and Du which the freshmen are being required to watch.

I personally wouldn't have a problem with Ahmadinejad or even Pope Benedict coming to speak at Vanderbilt. I know the two aren't even comparable in terms of politics, but they are similar in one respect -- according to the left here at Vanderbilt, these people shouldn't be allowed a voice because of their views. It seems that Ms. Attermann has joined this group who advocate censorship in the name of defending diversity and complacency. This behavior is indicative of Soviet or Red Chinese party officials, not of Americans.

Moreover, I agree with "TheArtificer" when he says that Ahmadinejad may be being misrepresented in the media. Even his most infamous statement, which supposedly called for Israel to be "wiped off the map", was a faulty mistranslation -- he actually called for the end of the regime which occupies Jerusalem, a regime which he views as violent and unjust. We shouldn't just rely on media sensationalism to form opinions, but we should be willing to question and evaluate the validity of information that we are given. And allowing Ahmadinejad, or other controversial persons to speak, would be one way to do that.

Kudos on the argument. It is pointless to spend student acc fees or other funds to listen to someone spit out his tyrant theory. I can read all about that on CNN or Fox or any other news source that wants to comment on Middle Eastern political agendas. Having a speaker is supposed to be an informative, potentially motivating, thought provoking experience that you cant get by reading a paper. All he would create is an argumentative environment that would culminate in a few editorials by ignorant individuals then be forgotten. This is a learning institution focused on preparing people to function primarily in the American world, so funds are best spent, as you suggest, on people like Ben and Jerry who can give real motivation to real students in their real fields of study. Or maybe we should waste money funding the Holocaust investigation. Comparing the study of the holocaust to physics is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. This isn't a research project where we compare the speed of sound to the speed of light based on mathematical equations and theoretical assumptions. I feel we have gotten all the "research" we need on the holocaust from tattoos on peoples arms and mass graves uncovered across the WWII war path. Lets leave the tyrants to continue to ruin their respective countries and focus on improving ours.

In your fit of passion you rely too heavily on your feelings and as a result present false facts. If you listened to Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia you would realize he never denied the holocaust. Rather, he requested that additional research be done into it. He compared the holocaust to physics in that we are constantly researching physics even though we believe those principles to be true. He suggests the European researchers not be banned from studying the holocaust (as they currently are) and be allowed to research further into what Ahmedinejad referred to as a trajedy. What you are guilty of, Eve, is jumping on the liberal bandwagon and regurgitating what liberal news persons tell you. I found it interesting you referred to the fight between gay and nongay students as a hate crime. What proof do you have that, in fact, a hate crime occurred and it was not just a fight between a gay and nongay persons. The answer, of course, is leftist heresay which is founded on quick jumps on anything which could potentially be construed as hate according to sexuality preference, sex, or race. I too disagree with many things Soo Yang said, including that we should invite speakers simply because they are controversial and not because they have valid opinions. However, I fully agree with Columbia's decision to let the "tyrant" speak. The truth is that most of what we hear about Ahmedinejad is second hand through the media (no doubt this is where you heard he was a holocaust denier). This event gave students and professors at Columbia the chance to openly question Ahmedinejad and find out what his real stances are. Although he skated around most of the questions, the truth of his beliefs on the holocaust came out. This sort of dialogue between the future leaders of America and one of the predominant leaders of the middle east (a region where many of our soldiers currently are) helps us to further understand the political agendas of the more controversial leaders of the world. Like it or not, Ahmedinejad is in power. Like it or not, he has influence over the middle east. Like it or not, you must hear and understand his opinions if you ever hope to accurately criticize his stances or propose any sort of reform. I implore you to think deeper into the subject of why this talk and talks like it may be beneficial to the United States' foreign policy/understanding of the middle east before reacting with ignorance as a result of your own fear. The reality is that the world isn't made of Ben and Jerry's and that people like Ahmedinejad are around and the better we understand him and those like him, the better we will be able to function as a society.