To the Editor:

Emily Grant’s guest column (“A Yale conservative wonders: Why would we boycott Hillary Clinton?” 4/3) opposing the boycott of Senator Hillary Clinton as the Class Day speaker included several errors. I would like to clear these up, especially since readers may naturally tend to grant her the benefit of the doubt simply because she happens to emphasize her conservative credentials.

Most importantly, Grant attacks me for saying that I want to “give [Clinton] a taste of her own medicine.” I have never said anything of the kind, and to imply that the boycott effort intends to disrupt Hillary’s actual address betrays her ignorance of our basic goals.

Grant continues by arguing that despite Clinton’s sale of, and finally theft from, the White House (among many other shameful actions), because she has not been convicted of a crime, there is no reason to oppose her receiving the honor accorded to the Class Day speaker. Since no one will unify the class completely, Grant contends, any speaker is just fine.

But that argument ignores the primary goal of this effort: to show that 10 percent of the senior class is so opposed to the choice of Clinton that they will boycott their own Class Day address. I can think of no one else Yale would consider whose selection would engender such a negative reaction. For that reason we ask that someone else be found.

Daniel Mindus ’01

April 3, 2001

The author is organizing a boycott of this year’s Class Day speaker.