To the Editor,

I am writing in response to the article published Tuesday, Nov. 27, about Tucker Max’s visit to Pitt. I was one of the protesters gathered in the Union and am writing this letter because the views of the protesters, as well as students who couldn’t make it to the protest, were inaccurately represented. We were portrayed as being upset because Max swears and parties. That is not why we were upset.

We protested the event because Max’s claim to fame is his published stories of his sexual conquests. These stories are disrespectful toward women at their best, and at their worst, they contain issues regarding consent. Max has written about videotaping sex with a girl who didn’t know a video was being taken. He admits to coercing girls into sexual practices with which they were uncomfortable. And not only does he admit it, he parades it — and he has made huge sums of money from it.

When Pitt Program Council paid Max Pitt students’ money to come and speak at the University, the Council gave the message that Max’s behaviors were OK, which is horrifying. I urge PPC to be more mindful the next time members want to bring a controversial speaker and to consider whether the benefits outweigh the potential negatives. In this case, the answer for me, and for everyone else who protested the event, was an obvious no. PPC should have seen this too.

Melissa Tabak

Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences

To the Editor,

I was never more disappointed in my university than last Monday night with its use of my tuition money or that of my classmates.

Tucker Max’s “controversy” — which was never explained in the Tuesday article covering the event — is more than just his love of partying. On his website, Max admits to coercing his drunken girlfriend into anal sex, which she had been continuously denying him.

That is sexual assault.

Pitt invited a speaker who admitted to sexual assault and used my tuition money to pay for it. This is equal to tolerating what he has done.

This is an insult to all female students.

This University is supposed to promote a code of civility. He also strayed far from his promised topic of following one’s dreams and even happily said that he has “in no way recanted.”

Rachel Peters

Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences

To the Editor,

Eric Baldwin’s column last Wednesday, “Israel’s actions justified in the fight for democracy,” presents a one-sided, considerably weak argument. Although I can understand why it is important for the U.S. to support Israel — a strong ally surrounded by some hostile neighbors — he fails to acknowledge that Israeli action has contributed to this hostility. Furthermore, just because a country considers itself to be a democracy does not mean that other democratic countries must give it a carte blanche to commit human rights abuses in the name of defending itself. One can argue that such actions undermine the principles of democracy and are counterintuitive to spreading democracy in the region. In addition, cherry picking quotes by radicals cannot be used as justification for Israel’s offensive position. Are you advocating, as Gilad Sharon so crudely stated, that to defend itself, Israel must “flatten entire neighborhoods in Gaza. Flatten all of Gaza. The Americans didn’t stop with Hiroshima — the Japanese weren’t surrendering fast enough, so they hit Nagasaki, too”?

Loretta Agyemang

Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences