[zerospinboson]

Arguing against Marx used to get you into a "re-education" camp, while railing against Rand got you tenure at a third-rate university.

Yes, And arguing "for" "Marx" (or really stalinism) used to get you in lots and lots of trouble before that. I'd rather be in a re-education camp than in McCarthy's prisons, thank you very much.

Originally Posted by Sonist

But what do you mean, by insisting, that Rand is "irrelevant" outside of the US? It's like insisting that because Locke was "irrelevant" in Siberia, we can safely ignore his work.

What I mean is that we aren't forced to consider her "point of view" just because the parents of american teenagers complain when Rand isn't part of the curriculum.

Originally Posted by Sonist

Many intelligent, educated people outside of the US and the UK, have at least some idea of Rand (even if based on a bad French translation. Regardless of where one is on the political spectrum, dismissing her work as "irrelevant" is just silly.

Sigh. The point of discussion is reasoned argument, not gut feeling and a bit of word painting. I'm not talking about, nor interested in, rhetoric, here.
The reason she is irrelevant is because she does nothing more than say "hey, but what about this?". Even if someone were to make it into a tenable position (Hayek, perhaps, or Leo Strauss, or someone else I can't think of), "we" still wouldn't be discussing Rand, we'd be discussing the merits of the theories of those others.
And theories stand and fall with the amount of ground they're able to coherently cover.

As silly, as approaching her ideas with the preconceived notion to "figure out what is wrong with them, and move on."

Huh? What's this?

But, what if, some young, open, inquisitive mind in the classroom, finds some appeal in these "atheist capitalism" ideas...?! Oh the horror..., the horror of it!

Please, spare me the false dichotomies between not being "young, open, [and] inquisitive" and not caring one fig about Rand's ideas.
For some reason you seem to be supposing I'm entirely unfamiliar with her work, or that I only read it in order to reinforce my beliefs that she's a kook. Why is that, exactly?
Try reading "the virtue of selfishness", and be astounded by the way she conflates "every position she disagrees with" with "altruism". Gee, no wonder it sounds so unappetizing, it's a straw man... Who would've expected it.