By Brendan O’Reilly
Never, until these past seven days, did I expect the opinion of this paper to hold so much weight. But since the last issue of The Chronicle hit the stands and the Web, an editorial I authored last week criticizing the University for inviting disbarred attorney Lynne Stewart to campus has been quoted in Newsday, The New York Post and The New York Times. Apparently the “quotable quote” of last week was “How horrible does someone need to be, and what heinous acts must they commit, before it is okay to say that they should not be put behind a podium and given a microphone?” All three papers cited that quote in referring to my editorial.
All this fuss over one little editorial in a campus newspaper. It started on Friday, when Newsday noticed the editorial and contacted me for an interview. When the article was published on Monday I noticed that-thanks to selective use of partial quotes-I came off as if I speak like a Valley Girl.
Figures the newspaper would have no reservations toward portraying me in such a way; the next day Newsday ran a “short take” in defense of Hofstra Law hosting Stewart.
Not every New York paper shares Newsday’s view. The Post’s Kieran Crowley, who reported on Stewart’s visit and quoted my editorial, said Stewart’s acts in support of terrorism were reprehensible. I was at first confused by his expression of his personal opinion when I returned his call requesting an interview. He explained that he thinks the matter “goes beyond journalistic objectivity.”
I, for one, do not agree with that. My opinion stays on the editorial page, and out of the rest of the paper, now matter how passionate I feel about an issue.
I was apprehensive about agreeing to be interviewed, but I figured I should stand by my editorial.
Had I taken the opposite view, and supported Stewart’s visit to campus, no one would have noticed what I wrote. I easily could have taken that path, since I understand and respect the argument in support of her visit. It is much more fun, however, to hold a view most will criticize me for.
That is not to say that last week’s editorial “Campus controversy: Disbarred lawyer should not be welcome” was insincere. I do believe that Stewart has the right to her opinion and the right to express that opinion, but the University should not have accommodated her.
The argument that she is a great example for aspiring lawyers to learn what not to do is undeniably valid. Stewart certainly provides a great case study on legal ethics. But, if Hofstra were to hold a conference on Darfur, would the University invite perpetrators of the 1994 Rwandan genocide? They would certainly be able to share expert insight, thought I’m sure many students don’t want to have mass-murderers on their campus.
Is it fair to compare genocide to Stewart’s acts aiding a terrorist organization? Considering that terrorists and perpetrators of genocide kill civilians simply because they are different than them, I’d say it is a fair comparison.
As evidenced by the letters to the editor this week, I have come under heavy criticism for my position on the Stewart invitation. More disapproval can be found on newsday.com, with comments such as “I am disappointed that a progressive University would have students with such a limited view of who has the right to speak in charge of the college paper.”
More than disfavor can be found, however. “Finally some students with more brains then the people who run the colleges,” said one commentor.
My favorite response I received this week came from someone I actually know, rather than strangers who presume to know me and hide behind the anonymity of the Internet. “Your quote in Newsday today was well put,” read an e-mail from a veteran who I know through Scouting. “Keep doing the right thing, it’s important in life.”

Editor-In-Chief Brendan O’Reilly