Bill Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground who remains controversial to this day, was originally scheduled to come to campus on March 30. This development has been met with skepticism by faculty members and students alike. These critics of Bill Ayers' character argue that Brandeis should not welcome a formerly unrepentant bomber of the Pentagon, the U.S Capitol, and other federal buildings-an individual who seems to appeal only to the most radical of students. Although these criticisms are legitimate, the school should welcome Mr. Ayers to speak and express his views. Brandeis ought to serve as a forum for all different kinds of perspectives. Even if individuals offer points of view that are deemed radical and unpopular, they should nonetheless feel comfortable expressing them at our academic institution. We celebrate diversity in our student body and faculty; we should also celebrate heterogeneity in what people think.

Preventing Mr. Ayers from coming here would discredit a view held by many members of Brandeis students and faculty. Among those who work at Brandeis and call it their home are individuals whose beliefs represent an entire spectrum of thoughts and philosophies. This vast array of ideas, radical ones included, is what gives our school an intellectual atmosphere. Also, it is one of the most important factors that draws bright students to this corner of the world. Are we to deny someone whose ideas and association with us can only add to this diversity?

Another reason to grant Mr. Ayers this opportunity is that he has many positive virtues that override his seemingly dubious past. Currently, he is a professor of education at the University of Illinois and a leading advocate for education reform. He has also served on the board of directors for the Annenberg Challenge, which raised millions of dollars to improve the quality of Chicago public schools, as well as the Woods Fund, a philanthropic organization devoted to fighting poverty. The city of Chicago bestowed its Citizen of the Year award upon Ayers in 1997 for these admirable efforts.

In addition, the Weather Underground was in actuality not as horrifying as the caricature its harshest critics continue to paint it as: a destructive and violent group of communist radicals. True, its members bombed several important governmental buildings. However, these acts were not meant to hurt anyone, and they didn't. Rather, they were primarily symbolic and a form of protest against the Vietnam War. Were they a little extreme? Perhaps. But ultimately, the organization had understandable intentions. It was born out of the chaos of the late 1960s and early '70s and not out of some malicious desire to hurt people.

In fact, one can consider Mr. Ayers' past admirable in the sense that it can inspire our own activism and desire to engage in political affairs. Although we shouldn't necessarily emulate the tactics that were exercised by the Weather Underground, we ought to view their spirit and fervent desire for change in a positive fashion. That is, we can take from them the fact that, with enough motivation, people can ultimately incite their government to act in ways that better represent their values.

Lastly, by rejecting Mr. Ayers, one of the only things we gain is a reputation for being parochial and narrow-minded-a kind of worldview that typified the Republicans in their attempts to demonize Barack Obama by linking him to Mr. Ayers. And personally, I would rather not be associated with the likes of the Alaskan governor who claimed that President Obama is someone who "sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.