At the core of higher education is the idea that every idea, no matter how insignificant or offensive, can be expressed, discussed and debated. In the marketplace of ideas, the wheat is separated from the chaff.

Yet on many campuses, vocal minorities on both sides of the political spectrum are drowning out those ideas. The marketplace of ideas is being eroded in favor of a convenience store of emotion.

Last month, a campus-wide forum at Syracuse University devolved into chaos as two professors interrupted the forum and berated student members of "Over the Hill," a controversial television show broadcast on the campus network. The forum was called in response to controversy over the content of the show, which some considered to be racist and sexist.

Earlier in the month, the Northeastern Illinois University Independent published a letter by an English professor in response to H.O.M.E., a new student organization that promotes anti-homosexual views. His rant questioned the sexual orientation of David, Jesus, St. Paul and Michelangelo before ending with "they should all go [expletive] themselves — and I hope that it hurts when they do and they catch a disease and puke all over themselves and die, horribly."

Both of these are perfect examples of protected speech. But what the faculty members fail to see is that the speech they are railing against, despite their offensive nature, are protected speech as well.

Neither side should be commended. Both sides should be tolerated.

These examples also illustrate the growing partisanship in the university environment. No longer is it a simple right-versus-left dynamic, or progressive-versus-conservative. The new debate is between absolute and relative worldviews.

There is an authority behind the vocal right and the vocal left on campuses. The vocal right claims a moral authority against what it considers to be an increasingly decadent world, while the vocal left appeals to a particular notion of social justice that masks its own sense of a moral center.

Somewhere in between is the majority of faculty and students who are hoping for an open exchange of ideas that will allow them to develop or discover their own sense of a moral center.

What happens often, however, is the emotional and ad hominem attacks from both vocal right and left serves only to chill that exchange. Questioning the need for affirmative action results in charges of racism. Arguing a pro-choice position results in cries of "baby killer."

Let's make it clear that it's not the absolute nature of the vocal right and vocal left that chills discussion, but rather it's the emotional response that inevitably dominates discussion that has a negative effect on campus dialogue — an emotional response that fails to engage and debate a view on the merits.

Of course, we don't have to travel to Northeastern Illinois or Syracuse to find examples. They are here in own backyard.

Earlier this semester, a pro-Palestinian author caused The Badger Herald to receive a number of interesting responses. While many of the letters chose to respond to the argument, a sizable portion instead decided that ad hominem attacks were more in order. Rather than engage the debate, they simply resorted to name-calling and mud-slinging that hasn't been seen around town since W. Randolph Hearst.

Another columnist questioning mandatory diversity training received a deluge of letters claiming the author was racist, bigoted and reactionary. The particular merits or weaknesses of the argument were never mentioned.

My own columns have received some particularly amusing comments from the emotional left, one calling me a "sick breeder [expletive]," another lamenting that a "chauvinistic and sexist" individual such as myself "won't die soon enough," and a number wondering if I would defend the free speech rights of liberals and Democrats. As a lifelong liberal Democrat who has contributed both time and money to the party, I'd like to think I would.

Despite the negative and disingenuous tone of this kind of rhetoric, however, it would be hypocritical to not recognize that it is protected speech. I would fight for it the same reason I often point out injustices against the right: freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom for speech we agree with, but freedom for speech we don't.

Yet, I can't help but wish for more.

The University of Wisconsin has come a long way since the days that speech codes held sway. Thanks to the tireless members of CAFR and other notable members of the UW community, we are privileged to attend a university where free and open debate is accepted.

But that's only the first step. Now is the time to create an environment where the free exchange of ideas is not only tolerated but encouraged. Let's raise the level of public discourse on this campus. Let that be our legacy.

Charles Parsons ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in literature in English and is editorial page editor of The Badger Herald.