To the Editor: Debate is a phenomenal way to learn and grow as educated people. However, it is important that we remember that not all debate is inherently good, and we must recognize certain issues that need to be dealt with more carefully. Benjamin Freed's letter to the editor ("Controversy Must Be Welcomed at Brandeis," Feb. 13 issue) proposes that we must welcome controversy simply because it will spark debate.

In my time at Brandeis, I learned very early on that this is not always the case. For example, when a WBRS DJ improvised a song about Asian strippers involving racial slurs, there was an intense controversy that rocked the campus. I doubt if there are many students who welcomed that controversy or would like to see it repeated. Similarly, when students spraypainted swastikas on campus, they expressed a controversial opinion, but I doubt if Freed would welcome the anti-Semitic vandals back for the sake of debate.

Obviously, I'm not saying that Jimmy Carter speaking is on par with, or even analogous, to making swastikas or spewing racial epithets (although I know some people are-curiously enough, the opinions of those people are ridiculed by Freed and not celebrated for being controversial). What I am saying is that not all controversy needs to be "welcomed" and not all speakers deserve the right to express themselves with the University as their medium. That does not mean that students cannot express their opinions, but when an outside speaker is invited, it's as if Brandeis approves of that speaker's message, especially when the speaker's presence comes with a cost as great as Carter's (Curiously enough, it seems that it is the people who argue that no cost is too high for the sake of debate who mock the importance of the donations which helped pay for Carter's visit.).

Without even discussing Freed's absurd allegation that all opponents of Carter's book are members of the "Zionist right," I must remind him and those who share his views that the integrity of the University is not dependent on letting any speaker speak on any topic. It's not cowardly to say that we as a University believe certain ideas to be hurtful and contrary to the mission of Brandeis.

I'm not saying that Carter's message necessarily was or was not destructive enough to ban it from the public forum. I'm just pointing out that it is not cowardly to say there are things we do not want our University to stand for. Students on all sides of the political spectrum have protested speakers on campus in the time I spent at Brandeis sometimes in unforgivably rude ways.

Stop worrying about whether President Reinharz was at the speech or not. He has a right to not agree or endorse Carter's message. Frankly, the fact that he allowed Carter to come and approved of the hefty price tag that came along with his visit despite the fact that he doesn't endorse what Carter is saying should be lauded. Yet somehow, Reinharz's complaints after the fact -not about the message but about the event going over budget-have led people like Freed to sling mud at him under the guise of "intellectual diversity." Why is it only your ideas that are diverse, and everyone else's are just wrong?

-Dave Firestein '05
Berkeley, Calif.