Last Thursday, Maryland Democratic Party Chairman Terry Lierman spoke to UW political science students about the 2004 presidential election, the presidential nomination process, and salient issues he thought Democrats needed to focus on in order to regain power at the congressional and presidential levels. After speaking for about 20 minutes, during which he mostly refrained from espousing any partisan rhetoric, Mr. Lierman decided to open the floor to questions. Blatant partisan positioning on Mr. Lierman's behalf soon followed.

While discussing President Bush, Mr. Lierman referred to him as an "idiot." Discussing Wisconsin Republican Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, Mr. Lierman referred to the congressman as "a disgrace to Wisconsin." Talking about stem-cell research, Mr. Lierman wondered aloud how people could not support it and its potential scientific contributions.

During the question-and-answer session, a few students walked out, undoubtedly perturbed with Mr. Lierman's choice to use this classroom speaking engagement as a soapbox for the Democratic platform. To one student who walked out while Mr. Lierman discussed his personal beliefs regarding stem-cell research, Mr. Lierman chuckled, "I guess some people here don't like stem-cell research."

On this campus and campuses throughout the country, conservatives consistently and constantly argue that intellectual diversity has not been deemed a priority in the college atmosphere. Intellectuals, professors, and campus administrators are decidedly liberal, conservatives argue. Conservatives must bite their lip and reign in any dissent they might feel, lest they be stigmatized and ridiculed by a majority of their liberal peers.

Though I feel that these contentions may sometimes be overblown, what occurred in my class last week certainly adds credence to criticism of the intellectual diversity in Madison. I wondered what would have happened had a Republican showed up and publicly reveled in the Democrat's futility and lack of vision. He almost certainly would have faced incredibly vocal opposition, and more than a handful of students would have left the room. Chaos, perhaps, would have erupted.

If there were any conservatives in the class, as I assume there were, I applaud them for their composure, class, and civility. Mr. Lierman's decision to espouse his political beliefs in a classroom setting alienated Democrats and Republicans alike. In the classroom, professors and members of academia should withhold personal political beliefs and convictions so as not to alienate their students. Mr. Lierman's actions certainly did not adhere to this academic tradition.

Most disappointing was Mr. Lierman's decision to ridicule members of the Republican Party using ad hominem attacks. Though his political beliefs should have remained mute, Mr. Lierman decided to attack conservative politicians by calling them "idiots." While he may have thought he was preaching to the liberal choir, I cringed at his repeated name-calling and the lack of substance and evidence in his arguments.

At a time when political parties, interest groups, and Americans are extremely polarized and divided, it would have been nice to hear Mr. Lierman talk about how Democrats and Republicans could work together on issues that affect all Americans. The reconstruction of Hurricane Katrina was an issue I wish he could have discussed as a bipartisan issue. I wish his remarks could have been more constructive and conciliatory. Instead, all I received was fire and brimstone rhetoric directed at the Bush administration — speech designed for an editorial page but not suitable for a classroom.

Josh Moskowitz ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science and journalism.