As an alumni of Hamilton College, I am writing to voice my utter disdain and disapproval that the College has chosen to allow Mr. Ward Churchill to speak at the school. An institution with a commitment to &the free exchange of ideas, (that) invites to its campus people of diverse opinions, often controversial& must carry with it responsibility, credibility and accountability. I can only impact the latter, but I am sure I will join many others in reminding you that if you choose not to exhibit responsibility or require credibility, you will be impacted by the accountability that you face. Platitudes on a web-site do not replace responsible decision-making. The school clearly does not &share deeply in the pain of the families who lost loved ones& If you did, you would not dishonor their memory by allowing someone with no credibility, or facts, to speak at the school on a topic of such import to our nation. There is no basis or foundation for the claims Mr. Churchill makes, leaving me to believe that your motivation for seeking him as a speaker can only be political, not educational, in nature. Your goal as an institution is to educate, not to indoctrinate, and I find it hard to understand how the school justifies such an event. I paid fairly good money to come to Hamilton and receive an education, maybe I should revisit my four years with a more informed view of what actually took place. I am providing a copy of this e-mail to my friend Mr. Frank Anechiarico, who helped teach me the value of responsible, open-minded discussion while I attended Hamilton. I am interested in knowing (from any of you) when the school lost sight of its need to balance responsibility and open-mindedness. I also copied the President's office, with hopes that you would consider using your authority in the matter to give consideration to the truth in your role as an educational institution (assuming that this is still your mission!). I assure you that I will join many other alumni to suggest that I will never again provide any form of support to Hamilton College if you allow Mr. Churchill to speak. Surely, if you must allow yourselves to make such a principled decision to ensure open-minded discussion regardless of the truth, you would not begrudge those of us who act similarly with the free speech that comes in the form of support for the institution. My voice may be small (and my donations even smaller), but truth in an e-mail to an audience of three is much more powerful the than a lie told from a stage before an audience of many. Possibly, many of us former Hamilton College students will become the teachers in this case.

I respecfully condemn the invitation of Ward Churchill to speak at Hamilton. I can appreciate your thoughts on free speech, and the importance of new ideas. However, I do not believe inviting a vile anti-American, and a person who thinks the victims of 9/11 deserved their fate, a worthy speaker of Hamilton. Would you invite a leader of the Klu Klux Klan to speak? I hope not. I believe I will be ceasing my yearly donations to a school that is longer mine.

You know, there's such a thing as "good judgment." I've just read 120 of the e-mails, and I think I have an idea what the prevailing opinion is. A couple of things are clear to me: 1. It is a stretch to call Churchill's views "free speech" in the sense that Hamilton College has some moral obligation to provide him a forum. As several of the e-mailers pointed out, his statements about the 9/11 victims have no basis in fact and are, indeed, akin to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. This is not the same thing as hosting a debate between Eugene Debs and Ayn Rand. 2. "Good judgment" can be applied by both liberals and conservatives. Even someone who is committed to diversity and political correctness and constitutional sensitivity should be able to tell when someone's views are so outrageous and inflammatory that a respected institution should disassociate itself from them. There is no shame in taking a position against demagoguery. I am saddened that it took death threats to get Hamilton to rescind this invitation. Obviously, without that, this guy would have been allowed to speak on February 3rd. I live in Atlanta, where not too many people have heard of Hamilton. Until now, I have been mildly irritated that my friends and neighbors did not immediately recognize what an outstanding education I received. I told them all about Drew Days, Alexander Woolcott, Tom Vilsak, John Nichols, Mike Castle, Elihu Root, but... I think Ms. Stewart needs to apologize for this poor judgment. It's OK. People make mistakes, even after having thought things over carefully. I'll accept an apology without screaming, "Off with her head!"

Wow Hamilton has opened a very dark door and reading all these emials the most compelling have to be the ones from perspective students. They are the future of Hamilton. You simply cant be caviler about speakers and freedom of speech. Do your homework. Think about consequences....Clearly his views are more offensive than educational and he should not be supported by a school. I have always had a hard time switching over to being a hamilton grad but this way sponsored by the Kirkland Project!! Now there is really no place to go.

I can't imagine why you would "give in" due to "threats". There are threats all the time. I understand that the speaker is half-baked; but there was a point in time when somebody thought he had something to say and he was invited to speak. The College should honor its invitations. As for the content - I think that the students and other audience members should be the best judges of that. We can't listen to what Osama Bin Ladin says because there might be "code words", according to our new Secretary of State. Are you people going to act like her?

Good afternoon. I received your email regarding the Ward Churchill incident, and hoped to be able to comment. Unfortunately, your web server appears to be subject to what we call the "Slashdot Effect" and is entirely unreachable. I suspect this may go to a dead mailbox, but I'll give it a try anyway. I am not familiar with Prof. Churchill's writings beyond what I read after a Google search. Based on that brief research, I believe his views are clearly offensive, and outrageous. So, by the way, were those of Robert H.W. Welch, the founder of the John Birch Society, who I heard speak at Hamilton in the 1960s. So were the views of the Soviet "students" who engaged in a debate in 1972, if my memory is correct (my favorite quote was something to the effect of "We at least do not shoot students on our campuses"). I think that both these incidents performed an important service - they allowed the speakers' views to be openly expressed, and openly refuted. Sunlight is an effective disinfectant. I am more frightened by the responses of many of the email writers than I am of Prof. Churchill. I am not afraid that he will "poison their thinking" - I fully believe that students at Hamilton know nonsense when they hear it. We did. I believe they also take some delight in debating provocative ideas, and debunking those that are foolish. We do not know, and sadly will not know, what Prof. Churchill would have said at Hamilton. After all, some three years have passed since he wrote the essay which has sparked so much vitriol. Perhaps he would have said he has reconsidered his position. Perhaps not. Either way, the cancellation of the program, while I understand the necessity of doing so given the existence of credible threats of violence, is a tragedy for many reasons. It deprives the speaker the opportunity to more fully explain himself, and to be either identified as a thoughtful, though provocative theorist or exposed as a charlatan or worse. It deprives the citizens of an opportunity to make up their own minds about this person rather than let Bill O'Reilly tell them what to think. It deprives the students of what could be, to say the least, a lively discussion. And it harms education by limiting the scope of political discourse. I do fear the email writers more than I fear Churchill. Their response and the resultant cancellation of the program make me fear the onset of a political orthodoxy in which some views are deemed so repugnant that they may not even be expressed. We don't need the First Amendment to protect popular speech, after all. By the way, when my straight A daughter is looking for a college to attend, we WILL be visiting Hamilton.

While I probably don't agree with Ward Churchill on many topics, I am appalled by the behavior of those who made threats. One of the areas in which I know I don't agree with Churchill is on pacifism. I have been a committed pacifist since my Hamilton days. But it doesn't take a pacifist to know that violence and threats of violence threaten free speech and democracy. That is as true on the Hill as it is in Iraq, Oklahoma City, New York, etc.

Good grief--can't you at least put out an honest press release? I have read the emails in opposition; I don't even recall more than one or two out of almost 400 in "support". How long did your pr people and your lawyers work on a statement characterizing far in excess of 90% as "most" and far fewer than 10% as "some"? Had the numbers been in reverse, you would have said--quite rightly--that an overwhelming number were in support and a tiny number against. Don't the Hill and President Stewart look ridiculous enough already without adding to the charade that there was some respectable support for their position?

I have been a very modest alumni donor to Hamilton in the past but with the recent course of educational and social direction the school has taken in the last few years under the administration of Joan Stewart, causing embarrassment and degradation to what once was a fine reputation, I must request the following. Please make sure to put me on the official "Do Not Call or Contact Until she's Gone" list for all future requests for giving. Thank you for your attention to this request

As the father of a ... daughter, I am appalled at the lack of judgement exhibited by the select group of (faculty?) members who adminster The Kirkland Project. Your myopic approach to stimulate opposing points of view is destroying the College's hard-earned reputation. When will someone in the administration be held accountable for these outrageous,intellectually arrogant (almost defiant) decisions? Is the President in hibernation or just clueless?

Upon reading this Hamilton Bulletin, I immediately brought up your "Message to the Hamilton Community". I would have lost all faith in Hamilton and my education had you capitulated to threats under these circumstances. I am still disturbed that so many of the graduates sought to prevent Ward Churchill, who I know nothing about, from speaking.. Your reference to Justice Brandeis says it all. I commend you for the actions you took to resolve this dilemma is an appropriate way to protect free speech.

I was just about to send an e-mail about Mr. Churchill, informing you that my planned contribution to the Alumni Fund was cancelled if this man came to Hamilton. We lost a lot of friends on "9/11" and my oldest son, ..., has just graduated from OCS (Officer Candidate School) and will probably be deployed to Iraq. I have been OUTRAGED ever since I heard his comment that "we deserved it." This Kirkland Project needs some NEW GUIDANCE!

Nancy-- We can only hope that there truly is no such thing as bad press as long as they spell your name right, because you certainly have been responsible for getting Hamilton a boatload of bad press recently. Providing a forum for reasonable discourse is the hallmark of a liberal arts college and should be celebrated. We may disagree on many issues, but that should not prevent us from sharing our ideas. There is a point however, when ideas are so reprehensible, that they are not worthy of the forum that Hamilton represents. We find it troubling, as we celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of the liberation of the prisoners from Auschwitz, that you have chosen to provide a public platform for (i.e. pay) someone who trivializes the horrors of Nazism. To equate the thousands who died on September 11, 2001 with Adolf Eichmann, one of the true monsters of the twentieth century, is an insult beyond forgiveness. To argue, as he does, that they deserved to die because they worked in the World Trade Center is disturbingly similar to the argument that six million European Jews deserved to die because of their Judaism. Your personal insensitivity to the members of the Hamilton family who died themselves or lost loved ones because of the attack on the World Trade Center is inexcusable and unacceptable as a role model within the Hamilton community. If Ward Churchill were a Hamilton student, constrained by the current college harassment policy, he would never be permitted to present the ideas which he has continually put forth. He would be roundly denounced, and properly so, for fostering a hostile environment incompatible with the values of Hamilton College. We look forward to your resignation.

As an alumnus, perhaps the college ought to be reconsidering who is running the ship and who is accountable for the series of faux-pas over the past few months. These are difficult times and there is a great deal of sensitivity in the world. I am a very thick-skinned person but find it personally insulting to think that this institution would use the hard-earned money of its alumni to subsidize the views and possibly movements or cults of the "crack pots" recently heading to the Hill. Do the people making these decisions have any clue as to what they are doing? I don't give a great deal of money each year, but I can assure you that I will not be making a contribution in 2005 and am rethinking where my dollars should be heading down the road. Hopefully, I am not the only person who feels this way. What an embarrassment to this institution!!!!

Stop the nonsense... You know as well as I that this ludicrous exhibition of supposed academic discourse was NOT cancelled due to anything like 'security reason' It was cancelled because you all have been forced out your myopic self induced trance wherein your ugly disregard for any opinion other than your own left wing biased agenda has come down firmly to roost our your doorstep. But your distasteful political bias aside.... How could your administration exhibit such a MONSTROUSLY imbecilic disregard for the well being of the students is beyond my comprehension. I will lift a toast to justice the day Ms Rabinowitz and Ms Stewart are fired. I do not need to pay $40,000/year to have my daughter's well being trod upon for an edge dwelling political agenda that stinks like a pile of manure shoved my nose.

I've just read Stewart's cancellation notice. The most diluted, egregious abuse of position I have laid eyes on. The victim cloaking herself in the 'most dear' etc. Again, this has nothing to do with free speech. Further, this was foreseeable. If she did not foresee the danger, then she is incompetent. If she did, then what game was she playing? Anyway, if all her stuff is 'most dear', then she should stick to her convictions. She has, of course-- her self-aggrandizement and martyrdom, once again at Hamilton's expense. I have to wonder if she sees herself as credible I do hope that Hamilton will not let time be the only force to diminish the furor. Sweeping things under the carpet is chicken has its costs.

Wonderful news. As a parent, it saves me writing a long and what may have been a convoluted letter. I think the Kirkland panel may want to take a good look at its direction and leadership.

One might have thought that Hamilton would have learned something from its dreadful public relations disaster surrounding the invitation to the woman convicted of a serious felony to speak last year. Apparently not. The college might at last need to consider its public image ahead of the desires of a small group within the campus community when those desires would predictably be in serious conflict with the great majority of the larger Hamilton family.

I think this is prudent. I humbly suggest, as a parent and a Quaker, that you supervise the selection of outside speakers much more closely to provide the students with a positive message. This is exemplified by Bill Clinton's recent appearance. The national image of the college is at stake as well as the mental health of all involved. Thank you fo changing course here. It demonstrates courage and judgment.

When can we expect President Stewart's and Prof. Rabinowitz's resignations?

HAMILTON COLLEGE HAS MY SUPPORT IN ALL POSITIONS ON THIS MATTER

Is there something wrong with Hamilton College? Perhaps that could be a topic for the upcoming Hamilton Review. I am quite ashamed to admit that I attended and graduated from this institution that, just a few weeks ago was going to have Susan Rosenberg teach in an adjunct role at the college. Must be the Board of Directors managed to talk some sense into you (possibly your job being taken away??) as Nancy Rabinowitz had a "phone call" whereby Rosenberg opted out. Well, why not have a man who compares the victims of 9/11 to Adolf Hitler's chief henchman, Adolph Eichman appear for a public debate?? As a private institution, Hamilton is obligated to walk the path of being careful not to be a proponent of "hate speech". Where has your common sense gone? The attacks were on innocent people who were at work on a sunny day, just a short drive from Hamilton College. Alumni were killed. Families have been forever changed. Mr. Churchill already exercised his freedom of speech. Your quote: "...we expect as a matter of civil discourse...that member of this academic community respect the dignity of reasoned and principle debate. It is in this setting that the substance and credibility of a speaker's views are established as being worthy of support or not. " What substance and credibility is Hamilton looking for? There is no dignity in what this man said...and if we have stooped to the level where we need to debate the credibility of this guy's demented views...then we need to take a long hard look at where we are at and where we are going.

I heard about the event and the cancellation. First off I would like to get all the details on the purported threats, are they real and if so they should be investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. If they are a bunch of cranks incited by Bill O'Reilly or a bunch of narrow minded professors looking for a little air time then they should also be investigated and prosecuted. I have read what Ward said and happen to find it very interesting. I have attached a copy of Ward's statement which explains his writings in context, are these fair assessments of his positions? If so, I don't understand what the problem is. I will be looking forward to your reply.

I am writing in support of President Stewart's invitation of Ward Churchill to speak on campus. I am also supportive of the way she has handled the events that lead to the decision to cancel the speech. As a Hamilton alumna, I believe strongly in free speech and support the college's choice in airing all opinions. It appears that the uproar was a result of media attention, primarily from right wing. From all that I've heard and read, the response of Hamilton and it's president has been exceptional. Free speech is essential, especially on college campuses. However, when faced with the kind of threats that were received, the decision to eventually cancel the event was also a thoughtful decision.

My husband and I are both alum and we are disgusted by the direction that Hamilton is heading in! Hamilton use to be an institution that we were proud to say that we went to but now it is a badge of shame and embarrassment. These highly controversial events have starting happening only after the new President has taken office - I think that it is time for her to rethink her position for the sake of the College. While this country is going through an extremely difficult time, Hamilton College pours salt on the wound by inviting speakers such as you have these past couple of months. How can you do this? How can you do that to the memory of the alumni, family, and friends that died on Sept. 11th? How can you all sleep at night? Plain and simple we are deeply saddened by Hamilton's fall from grace and you only have yourselves to blame for it!

I've just come from lunch w/ ...- and can only imagine how disappointed and discouraged you must be to be facing the same controversy you so successfully managed 2 short months ago. While I have not been able to access Ward's websites (yet), I have heard enough to understand that his appearance on the Hill - particularly in light of his "offhand" comments about 9/11 victims - stand the chance of being far more damaging to your administration, to the cohesion of the Alumni body and to the support for preaent and future fundraising efforts than the previous controversy - as a standalone event. Coming so swiftly on the heels of December's event will, in my mind, stand to paint Hamilton as a platform NOT for free speech but for supported violence. In this age of so much unnecessary violence I don't see a productive outcome to sponsoring a speaker like Ward - particularly in an environment where we're trying to teach and support productive means to an end. I urge that the panel be cancelled - and I do not do so without much thought to many potential consequences. But I leave the final decision to your good judgement - which has been unfailingly the right one as you've been tested so far.

As a parent of a former student ('02) and parents advisory board, I want to thank whomever cancelled the speaker program. This is now the second major disastor for the school to have to overcome. If I had a child now considering Hamilton, I would have to think twice about the choice given the left wing publicity the past two problems have brought to the public forum. I will continue to give to the School only if the the President and faculty move a tad to the right of Atilla The Hun.

Hamilton has again demonstrated that it cannot deal with academic freedom. The episode with Sylvia Rosenberg, and now Ward Churchill marks a low point in the College's history. I disagree strongly with the positions of these two persons, but I will defend their right to speak, and to present their views in open forum for argument and refutation. Are we so frightened that now we can't allow our students to hear anything but politically correct speech. Shame on Hamilton.

I do not understand what is going on at Hamilton, but I believe that somewhere along the line it has lost its ability to logically reason and make true, moral decisions. There is good and evil in this world; some things are still black and white. The fact that this college continues to make wrong choices about speakers and professors and chooses to reverse them only after receiving "threats" speaks volumes about the leadership of its president. Shame on Hamilton for even considering Mr. Churchill as a speaker under the guise of free speech. I am embarrassed to be a graduate of this college. I suppose I will be receiving another one of the president's muddled letters explaining the gray, muddied positions of Hamilton. I almost sent the last one back with a note suggesting that perhaps she should audit one of Hamilton's beginning writing classes so when called on she could clearly state her thoughts. And here is one final thought. I do not give money to the college. I haven't for several years because I always found better causes to suppport financially. When the Excelsior campaign literature arrived in the mail a few days ago, I read it and instead of throwing it out, I put it aside with the thought that perhaps I would donate. I threw it out last night.

It is a terrible thing you have done to censer Mr. Churchill.

As a Hamilton alumnus, I am expressing my outrage that Hamilton College, one of the country?s oldest and named for the greatest of the Founding Fathers, is providing a platform to someone who equates the victims of 9/11 to the perpetrator of Auschwitz. I?m afraid ... is right. Hamilton is becoming a laughingstock. In your message to the Hamilton community yesterday, you say ?But there is a principle at stake ? a matter of free speech.? However, I noticed you also state the invitation to Churchill was extended and accepted before ?? statements he had made about 9/11 came to light?. Are you implying there would have been no invitation had you known? What about free speech? In any case, your ??matter of free speech? explanation is an obvious red herring. The real problem is you have allowed a rogue, wacky, hyper-leftist professor with a clear political agenda to highjack Hamilton and you have not put a stop to it. If Hamilton was serious about exploring unpopular opinions and strengthening students? intellectual foundations, it would invite serious speakers with legitimate ideas and positions from both the far left and the far right, rather than the travesty planned for later this week. It saddens me that the college where I spent four wonderful years is being even further tarnished. One of the messages on Hamilton?s website refers to the Director of Admissions? comment about prospective Hamilton students withdrawing their applications after the Rosenberg mess and, of course, many alumni, including myself, will withhold contributions if you allow this travesty to forward. However, it is still not to late and I strongly urge you to do everything in your power to prevent it.

I am not a fan of censorship. Discussions about 9/11 are needed, however, why invite Mr. Churchill to Hamilton??? I believe Hamilton should invite speakers that encourage students to think about the negative consequences of US foreign policy, why 9/11 happened, and how we can prevent another 9/11. Im afraid that brining in an individual like Mr. Churchill just brings controversy to the school and polarizes the issue. It closes the debate instead of opening it. Do you really think someone like Mr. Churchill will have any impact on students other than solidifying the opinions the students already have? His message is hateful (comparing people in the World Trade Center to Eichmann is well beyond the line of respectful speech), and hate speech does not bring value to a liberal arts education. In addition, instead of talking about the important issues, it seems that the debate has shifted to discussing Mr. Churchill. Could you please tell me why Mr. Churchill was invited? Is he being paid? If so, how much? How is it academic to compare people in the WTC to Eichmann? (I agree it is his right to make the statement, but I disagree with Hamilton by calling the statement academic. Not all free speech is academic, even if given by an academic.) Were any alternative speakers considered? If not, why not? If so, why were they not chosen?

I am sad to say that I can no longer support Hamilton because it seems that the college has stopped recognizing the values that I have always thought it represented and espoused. During my years at Hamilton, we had a few controversial speakers, but none so repugnant, improper and downright incorrect as Ward Churchill. I am shocked and dismayed that Ward Churchill has been invited to speak on the Hill. His views, though he is entitled to have them, are not ones that Hamilton should acknowledge, nor pay for. It is discouraging to know that an institution that I have known, loved and supported (via tuition, ACEP interviews, candidate interviews, annual donations, etc.), chooses to stick by a decision that is so flawed, not to mention hurtful to so many. I live in New York, and while I (thankfully) did not know any of those lost in the attack on the World Trade Center well, I know for a fact that none of them (including Art Jones '86, Adam Lewis '87, and Sylvia San Pio Resta '95) could have been equated to Adolph Eichmann by someone who never knew of or met them. By inviting Ward Churchill to speak, Hamilton is discounting the lives of the victims and of their families (some of whom I understand are presently students at Hamilton). It is unconscionable that you are putting your support behind a hate-monger rather than your own students. Lastly, you are doing Hamilton's students, past and present, and all of those connected with them school a great disservice. And, it is with great regret that Hamiltons action in this matter is forcing my hand I will no longer support Hamilton since it clearly is not the institution it once was. I will encourage other classmates to follow suit. I know my monetary contributions may not amount to much; however, my glowing recommendations and help I have offered over the years has undoubtedly been beneficial.

I'll be brief because I imagine you are swamped with e-mails. I think that having "interesting" people invited to campus is fine, but clearly you can see what a scar the press is creating. I may be off base, but I think that the Kirkland Project Director Nancy Rabinowitz is directly responsible for creating chaos. She's the director of the Kirkland project and though they want to open the eyes and minds of Hamilton students, they have made bad choices. There can be great speakers that come to Hamilton that are not as controversial - I'm all for free speech - but when I hear Hamilton's name being dragged through the mud on national news it's time to evaluate - and supervise the decisions that the Kirkland Project is making. It's happened twice - the committee is directed by Nancy - so that's why I bring up her name. I hope to hear Hamilton's name in a much more favorable light next time I turn on the national news. If I am totally off base, please let me know. I have many people (friends and family) e-mailing and calling me wondering what has happened to the Hamilton that I attended. I don't have any answers.

SO sorry to hear that...just opened you e-mail moments ago, but I read what you sent me with Sid's big grin on the front cover and it brought back many memories....they broke the mold with him....saw the cancellation notice, plus a lot of friends and family have been calling me out on this guy as it has received even more press than the last one...even saw it on Fox and heard it on the radio too...Joan sure has her hands full with Rabinowitz et. al; she should can her ass!!!!!

What is the board of trustees reaction to this PR debacle? It would be good to know and have a comment of either support or lack of confidence about the college administration posted on the website and disseminated to the college community. The issue of free speech needs to take a back seat to the lightning rod of bad press this embarrassment has regurgitated upon our fine institution. It sickens me to know to think that an extreme radical professor Nancy Rabinowitz (who I had for a comparative literature class) can determine the agenda of the college without any oversight from the responsible administration who are then left to clean up the mess. I suggest the Hamilton immediately institute a policy of administration review of any invited speakers so that at least for the foreseeable future that there be some kind of adult supervision to be sure a third embarrassment does not visit itself on Hamilton within the coming months. Finally I think all administration and faculty should be required to read the following book to understand that there IS a difference between right and wrong. An institution of higher learning as esteemed as Hamilton has a moral obligation to guide its students on the right path so they can be good human beings as they make their future decisions after leaving with sheepskin diploma in hand.

What a shame Sid Wertimer had to pass away in the middle of all this garbage. Sid was what HC is all about. Anyway I wanted to reassure you that Hamilton will still get my $25.00 this year. Though from some of the e-mails I have seen and read, it looks like some alums are voting by closing their checkbooks. When I was a freshman, I remember going to see William Kuntsler speak. He was his usual "outrageous" self but no one thought he needed to die and the College survived his lecture. I wonder how much of the heat was stirred up by Bill O'Rilley who I am sure never would have gotten out of English 11 had he been on the Hill. Any way, I still believe in Hamilton even though it may have stumbled a bit. Hope things calm down soon.

As parents of a current ..., my husband and I planned to attend the reception for President Stewart On Feb. 17. However after the debacle with Ward Churchill we have decided not to attend. We feel we cannot support President Stewart after two extremely controversial speakers have bought down the reputation of Hamilton. I have read many of the e-mails received by Hamilton and am very upset by the dark shadow that has been cast on Hamilton college. Alumni and parents will be closing their wallets and students will not be applying to what I believe is a wonderful institution.

I have been a long time and vocal supporter of Hamilton on the west coast, including a .... I have conducted interviews, been a member of WAVE, participated in telethons, recruited students and yes, given small amounts of money. My oldest son has visited Hamilton and was considering applying for admission in the class of .... Sadly, I can no longer give my support to an institution which has clearly lost its way. The incident with the domestic terrorist a few months ago I put down to bad judgement, but the most recent invitation to Ward ChurchilI is indicative of a pattern. Either the college is sadly lacking in leadership or they have decided they should be a forum for ideas and principles which are totally lacking in academic rigor. I find "freedom of speech" to be a sadly misplaced argument in this situation. I will no longer be making donations, volunteering my time, espousing the benefits of Hamilton to prospective students or attending events until the leadership of the college has changed. I am urging all of my fellow alumni to also seriously reconsider their level of committment and devotion to Hamilton. Please accept my regrets for your event in ....

I'd like to be one of the few voices which applauds your attempts at promoting free speech as our founding fathers wrote it to be. While we are often repelled by the beliefs of the few (and frankly, in reading the posts to the website from the largely illiterate majority responding to the proposition of Churchill speaking, I was thoroughly repelled) we still must stand behind the right for the ability to SAY what we think. You made the right choice in canceling the event, and indeed, his ideas and beliefs ARE to be sure, totally repugnant, but you did what was right for the safety of the school. Unlike many who have threatened to not attend Hamilton (oh, boo-hoo, who wants such a closed-minded crybaby as a student anyway?) or to no longer donate, I am going to INCREASE my donation (I gave nothing last year, so it's easy to improve on that. Sorry, it was a tight year.) to show my support. I was properly educated at Hamilton to respect and appreciate those rights which so many seem to have trouble today understanding; I'd like to help others carry on in that tradition of open-minded thinking and the comprehension of our system of rights.