Iranian president doesn't deserve to speak
To whom ever wrote, "I hate you, can we talk". Your column is not only offending but ridiculous. I do not care what University you are but when the United States gives Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a 25 mile visa and New York City denies him from his outlandish request to visit ground zero their is more then enough proof that New Yorkers do not want him in their city.
So you mention that Universities are "places of learning" which I agree but not when it interferes and is against everything America stands for. He stands for everything we hate. Columbia is a top university in the country but they are standing on their Ivy League pedestal trying to show the nation there more intellectual by hearing all points of view. I don't buy it if your proud to be American. And Clinton McCain and Obama are all men who have served this country diplomatically and hope to god our future speakers do not involve Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The American public has no questions for him, what gives Columbia the right?
Steven Scott
Undergraduate
Using the pill is a dangerous proposition
(This letter is a response to "Oral contraceptives linked to cancer, study finds," which was printed on Monday.)
I'm not a scientist or doctor but I don't think that should stop me, or any woman, from using good judgment when considering whether or not to use the pill. The fact is, the majority of U.S. women use it in some form or another. But we should ask ourselves and honestly answer this question: Could taking synthetic hormones on a daily basis for 6-10 years of our reproductive lives have a negative effect on our health? And why are men, especially athletes, warned of the dangers of ingesting male hormones, or steroids, while women are continually told doing the same for years on end is 'safe?'
Risha O'Neill
Knowing you were raped is worse than wondering
(This letter is a response to "In the garden of rape," which was printed on Monday.)
I will confess to being bewildered by Ceo's editorial on Monday. While there is doubtless an excellent point buried in the article, it's obscured by a series of illogicalities (using OJ and MJ as definitive proof that men can get away with anything, labeling all men as pigs, and defining what happened to his friend as rape followed by a statement four paragraphs later that it isn't rape which may be more of a poor choice words). Most extraordinary, however, is his claim that what happened to his friend was worse than rape. Would wondering whether you had been raped be worse than knowing you had been? Would the culprit have been kinder to have actually physically raped her, than to leave her wondering? Are all of the health risks and physical and mental trauma of rape more bearable than that uncertainty? To make that claim seems far-fetched.
Tim Shaw
Undergraduate
