Downright offensive
In last Monday’s Hatchet, Tim Kaldas “explored what it means for the College Republicans to stand behind Ann Coulter’s remarks” (“Proudly presenting bigotry,” Feb. 13, p. 4). The editorial boiled down to one simple argument: The GW College Republicans stand behind principles of racism and bigotry. As chairman of the organization, I was personally offended by this accusation and felt it was necessary to respond on behalf of my 450 peers who consider themselves College Republicans at GW.
Mr. Kaldas relies on assumptions that are false. Our decision to bring Ms. Coulter to campus in no way equates to a sweeping endorsement of everything that she has said during her career. On the contrary, many of our own members disagree with certain aspects of her ideology. Yet, the mere existence of dissenting voices does not eradicate the benefits of her appearance.
Our campus is an environment that feeds off of the political world in which we live. As an organization, we believe it is our goal to incite a healthy debate in The George Washington University student community. The GW College Republicans provided a glimpse into the mind of a woman who has risen to national political stardom. And Mr. Kaldas wants an apology?
-Jeffrey K. Holth, chairman , GW College Republicans
Unnecessary visit
I fail to see why the College Republicans felt it necessary to bring Ann Coulter to campus. CR Chairman Jeffrey Holth stated that they brought Coulter to campus for her “intellectual discourse” and the “indelible mark she’s left on the modern conservative movement” (“Coulter plays to packed crowd,” Feb. 13, p. 1).
Apparently endless attacks are what pass for “intellectual discourse” for modern conservatives. Ms. Coulter doesn’t bring anything fresh to the political debate. She remains fixated on President Clinton and Sen. Ted Kennedy. She would rather make comments about Islam being a “cult” or The New York Times being a “liberal treasonous” newspaper than actually engage in a real debate.
Ms. Coulter adds absolutely nothing to the political debate in this country except for poorly argued polemics. I would feel the same way if the College Democrats decided to bring Michael Moore to campus. People like Ms. Coulter and Mr. Moore are simply interested in making money off shoddy research and terribly written books.
-Conor M. Savoy, alumnus
Why I am moderate
After reading Gary Livacari and Tim Kaldas’ columns in The Hatchet (Feb. 13, p. 4), I am more secure in my centrist convictions than ever.
Both students are right and both are wrong in their analyses of Ms. Coulter’s recent talk at GW. Livacari is right in stating there is often a tendency to degrade conservative views as unintellectual and antiquated. But Gary, do you honestly believe Ms. Coulter represents the mainstream of conservative America? If so, that says a lot about what the GOP stands for.
Tim is right to suggest that while inviting Ms. Coulter to speak at GW was not wrong in and of itself, her views on Islam are way out in the “far-right” field. However, even if we do not agree with her views, Ms. Coulter has every right to state them. It is only through such a debate that we can arrive at a national consensus.
There are few occasions in politics where there is but one right answer. More often than not there are multiple solutions, and we are best served by taking the best of a number of alternatives. Moderates understand this and look for sensible solutions to complex problems. That is why I am a moderate.
-Michael J. Weil, sophomore
