Participating in free intellectual discourse is a problem for university students. It's true that Brandeis provides many outlets for students to express a wide range of views. The Justice is one good example, in addition to the other media organization that afford similar opportunities. The problem, I think, is subtler than a lack of avenues. It seems that many students simply don't know how to engage in serious but respectful debate.For example, a student makes a provocative comment or invites a speaker whose views explicitly undermine what you think is important. You find his or her values or ideology offensive and distasteful. You respond by throwing around words like "hate" and "diversity." Or you organize a protest that, because at its core is merely a reflection of anger rather than conviction, amounts to little more than whining. Worse yet, you may respond by attacking the individual or group that advocates the position you find offensive. By attacking, I mean emphasizing, or in some cases making up, negative aspects of the group or individual instead of critiquing the content.

The result of any of such responses is always the same. Students feel less comfortable expressing opinions that do not reflect the popular view, and when they do speak out, their words are laced with the same anger and disrespect that prompted them to begin with. The vicious cycle is painfully evident in many of the controversies that Brandeis students have been involved with. The best recent example is the need for "Conservative Coming Out Week." I think the Justice editorial written on the subject was appropriate but overdue. It's just the latest example of a problem that plagues the pages of the Justice every week.

There's a difference between a critique and an attack. A critique focuses on content and the structure of argumentation. It usually lacks sarcasm, and most importantly, treats the author of whatever is being critiqued as a fellow human being with the right to an opinion. It points out precisely what part is misleading, distasteful, or offensive without reverting to name-calling.

An attack does the opposite. It avoids content and focuses on insulting the author. It is filled with rhetoric and ad hominem attacks. If someone argues, "So-and-so's suggestion is naave and simplistic," it may be true, but that's not what the author means. He or she means "I disagree," but because that sounds less sophisticated, the author resorts to petty rhetoric that is not only offensive, but lowers the quality of what is trying to be communicated.

Labels such as "racist," "sexist," and "close-minded" serve similar functions. Instead of addressing ideas, they simply invoke negative imagery.

You can criticize without attacking. It's more difficult, however, because it requires you to restrain the very emotion that is motivating your response. You may very well believe that so-and-so is a close-minded, racist idiot, and you may be right. But such a response only encourages more like it and fosters an atmosphere of contempt.

Yes, this is idealistic. Some may even believe that certain ideas are so far outside the realm of rational thought that they deserve an attack. In general, however, if students maintain a reasonable level of cordiality with each other during heated debate, everyone benefits.