This is going to be a controversial column. So before I begin, I would like to make a few disclaimers. First, I am not a bigot. I hate neither Muslims nor Islam. Religion is intensely personal, and I would never dream of judging another person on the basis of his or her faith. Second, I will not be talking about "true Islam" in this column. Islam, like every other religion, can be interpreted in numerous ways. I am not a Muslim and do not know very much about the Quran or Muslim theology, so I will not talk about what Islam "really" preaches. Finally, I will try to make this column as inoffensive and sensitive as I possibly can. But I will likely offend someone somewhere, and for that I apologize.On Sept. 4, Marty Peretz '59, editor in chief of The New Republic and famed Brandeis alumnus, wrote a blog post in which he made remarks that many took to be bigoted against Muslims. This sparked a small uproar in the national media, with the likes of New York Times op-ed columnist Nicholas Kristof attacking Peretz for his comments. But it wasn't just the national media that got sent into a frenzy; Peretz's blog post caused quite a stir here, too. A group of students began circulating a very strongly worded letter to Peretz that called his remarks "un-American, un-Brandeisian, and unethical" and that called on him to publicly apologize. Under pressure from national media figures like Kristoff, Peretz has apologized for some of his comments, although not all of them.

Facebook tells me that a lot of my friends have signed this letter. For most students, the question whether or not to sign was probably a no-brainer.

But I didn't sign the letter. I think the letter was unwarranted and unwise. I think it takes Peretz's comments out of context. I think it is serves to chill free speech. And I think it bespeaks a hypersensitivity unbefitting an academic institution committed to serious and thoughtful discussion of serious geopolitical issues.

The specific paragraph which has caused all the uproar, and which was quoted directly in the students' letter to Peretz reads:

"But, frankly, Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims. And among those Muslims led by the Imam Rauf there is hardly one who has raised a fuss about the routine and random bloodshed that defines their brotherhood. So, yes, I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse."

I admit, taken alone, this paragraph sounds pretty insensitive and bigoted. But a prudent person can't simply read one paragraph of a page-long blog post and then accuse someone of bigotry. That type of rush to judgment is shallow and serves only to distort the views of and slander those who say unpopular things.

Taken in context, it is glaringly obvious that Peretz was not attacking all Muslims. He was not saying that Muslim life ought to be cheap. The paragraphs immediately preceding the ostensibly offensive one discussed the recent terrorist attacks in Pakistan that claimed the lives of over 100 people. Those attacks were carried out by Sunni Muslims against Shiite Muslims. Peretz was lamenting the horrendous violence that occurs in places like Pakistan and Iraq and where Muslim extremists routinely kill other Muslims in the name of Islam. Furthermore, he was lamenting the fact that, in his view, there is precious little protest against such violence in the Islamic world.

It is not hateful to all Muslims to point out that there is a disturbing amount of religious violence and extremism in Muslim society. It is not an attack against the humanity of Muslims to say that far too many Muslims passively accept the existence of extremism and violence in their societies. As Peretz himself remarked in his apology in the pages of The New Republic, "The idea that in remarking upon the cheapening of Muslim lives, I was calling for the cheapening of Muslim lives, as some have suggested, is preposterous."

In fact, Peretz was doing the opposite of devaluing Muslim life. It would be hateful and bigoted to express pleasure at the thought of internecine Muslim violence. Calling on Muslims to take a stronger stand against terrorism within their own societies is a call to Muslim extremists to acknowledge the humanity of their fellow men.

However, the question remains: Couldn't Peretz have expressed himself in words that were a bit more politically correct and sensitive?

Yes, he could have. But we must not let the fact that Peretz's phraseology may have been poorly chosen obscure the points he made in his post.

Muslim extremism is a serious geopolitical problem. Any reasonable observer can acknowledge that there is a tremendous amount of violence in much of the Arab world, and that most of that violence is committed in the name of Islam. If we are to have a serious and meaningful public discourse about this terribly important topic, we mustn't demand that everyone who discusses it walk on glass.

Does anyone who reads Peretz's blog post seriously think that he wants to strip Muslims of First Amendment protections? Does anyone seriously think that Peretz thinks all Muslims do not value life? Why do we all suddenly become strict constructionists when it comes to parsing the words of media personalities? Pundits and columnists use hyperbole sometimes-they write with passion. We ought to be able to look past words which may have been poorly chosen or written in the heat of passion and see their meaning.

Peretz was criticizing Muslim society and what he perceives to be its tolerance of violent extremism. He was not criticizing all Muslims. He was not criticizing the religion of Islam. That ought to have been pretty obvious to anyone who stopped to think for a minute or two before rushing to judgment.

If one were to read an article attacking American society for being overly materialistic and corporatist, few people would think that the author was calling every American a materialist cheerleader for exploitative corporations. Likewise, accusing many Muslim societies for tolerating violent extremism is not the same as calling every Muslim a violent extremist.

Now, perhaps you think that Peretz's judgments about Muslim society in the Middle East are incorrect. Perhaps you think that the vast majority of moderate Muslims really are taking an active role to fight extremism in their countries or that they would be more active if they didn't fear their governments or the terror groups.

You may very well be correct, and Peretz may very well be wrong. But demanding apologies for politically incorrect language and calling Peretz a bigot is not engaging with his claims and challenging them. It is the classic tactic of someone who does not want to engage in a serious debate: name-calling. That chilling of free speech should not be present on a university campus, especially not ours-for that is truly un-Brandeisian.