Coulter criticism well-deserved

Sergio Gor’s recent opinion “Coulter criticism undeserved,” (Jan. 31, p. A4) reads like Coulter herself; this is no great surprise. Coulter often misrepresents the positions of liberals, because cartoonish mischaracterizations are easier to attack than real ones. Gor makes the same error when he suggests his opponents are arguing for a monopoly on speakers at GW, or that they are upset solely because “it is the progressive thing to do.”

The tactic benefits no one, as Gor doesn’t recognize or respect the arguments of his critics, nor does he present any kind of compelling defense of his own position. Contradictorily, Gor presents Coulter as someone with the capacity for intellectual discussion and one who is “happy to discuss the issues without resorting to attacks.” Both Gor and I know this to be manifestly untrue.

If the truth weren’t obvious enough, Gor simplifies the matter by making the same claim of his organization while simultaneously attacking his critics as close-minded, “angry,” “lunatics.” Coulter’s brilliance lies in her business acumen, not her opinions. She enriches herself regularly at the expense of people like Gor and his organization. The expense is not just to their bank accounts, but also to their capacity for the kind of intellectual discussion for which Gor seems to strive, and yet for which he fails so completely in providing by choosing Coulter.

Benjamin Williams, law student

Defense of Coulter flawed

I was extremely disappointed upon reading Sergio Gor’s editorial regarding Ann Coulter’s upcoming appearance at GW (Jan. 31, p. A4). While I agree that free speech is a vital and important liberty to the United States, and that the First Amendment was put in place not only to protect the speech we agree with, and more importantly that which we don’t, Gor’s defense of Coulter’s speech was painfully flawed. To say that Ann Coulter’s appearance will forward any “intellectual” discourse is plainly wrong.

Ms. Coulter’s arguments are not based on any sort of academic or scientific fact, and quite frankly, her words only seek to create a divisive and volatile atmosphere that is anything but conducive to forwarding any sort of intelligent debate. Furthermore, his use of the example of David Horowitz’s speech last fall only serves to weaken his argument. Far from being an actual phenomenon that warrants a serious examination, “Islamo-Fascism” is merely a construct of groups, including the Young America’s Foundation.

To defend Coulter’s appearance by likening it to a discussion of a non-existent issue is not only offensive, but also extremely dangerous. The very idea of “Islamo-Fascism” perpetuates stereotypes of various cultural groups and misconceptions of terrorism, and to compare Ms. Coulter’s ideas to such a concept,only further illuminates the ridiculous nature of her words. In this debate, Coulter and Horowitz clearly do not “win out”, as Gor so boldy puts it. It is my sincerest hope that in the future, Gor will make an effort to defend what could be a very credible argument with legitimately credible evidence.

Erica Evans, Senior