The David Horowitz event hosted by the College Republicans on Monday was one of the most well-attended events I can remember in my time here at the University of Wisconsin. We had nearly 1,000 people show up. I knew there would be protesters and, yes, most of those in attendance were there in opposition to the speaker, but I do think a few good things came of the event.

After the event, my e-mail inbox was filled with numerous messages both from people I knew and some that I had never met before. These emails said things like, “Thanks for hosting such a great event! It’s good to hear another side for a change! I’m a Democrat but…” or “I never knew there was a conservative presence on campus. How can I get involved?” Provoking people to think about what they constantly hear, outside of simply accepting leftist rhetoric as fact, is one of the reasons the CRs decided to host “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week” on campus.

Then again, when I looked at the “Protesting David Horowitz” Facebook group when I got home on Monday night, I saw something I never thought I’d see here on campus: rational discourse! People were actually admitting, online, not anonymously, that they agreed with some of the points that Horowitz made. Perhaps they didn’t agree with how he made them, but there was no denying that he used fact in his lecture.

I also heard actual conversation taking place as I was leaving the theater. College Republicans and members of the Muslim Student Association stood in the lobby together discussing the event. Again, the fearless “sifting and winnowing of ideas” — it’s in the university’s mission statement. By simply coming and listening and discussing what you heard, you’re helping the cause.

There were, however, as I knew there would be, people on the opposite side of the spectrum… and I don’t mean Democrats. What I mean is disrespectful audience members. Clearly, the CRs, by hosting this event, welcomed opposition. We welcomed protest. We welcomed the tough questions. What we didn’t want was for people ignorant of the facts to get up and start ranting and raving during the middle of the lecture or to try to seize control of the Q&A period. Unfortunately, we weren’t so lucky. And, no, I’m not just referring to Kevin Barrett.

Aside from Mr. Barrett’s asinine outburst, the lecture went quite well. Sure, there were some pretty imperceptive hisses and boos from the audience at inappropriate times, but all-in-all, nothing that disrupted the event. And then we got to the question and answer session.

In my mind, that’s where it went downhill.

So much for “Q&A” meaning “Question and Answer.” Monday night it was more like “Quest to get in as many words as I can before they cut me off and Attack back.” Seriously, people, we’re university students and should know better. There were a lot of people lined up to ask questions, and many of the questions that didn’t get asked were probably a lot more intelligent than those “questions” that did.

Not only was it discourteous to the others in attendance, it was also disrespectful to the speaker. Not asking direct questions flustered Mr. Horowitz. Now, I’m not making excuses for him, but he did call me about an hour after the event to apologize for the way he handled the Q&A and he said that he hopes his mishandling doesn’t reflect poorly on the CRs. I hope so too.

He realizes, as well as I do, that name-calling and personal attacks are not appropriate for this — or any type — of educational forum. However, when you say “my question to you, sir, is…” four times followed by yet another statement and never actually ask a question, you are not adding to the conversation. When you call the triple “s” on your boarding pass “racial inequality” and then turn around and call it security, you’re invalidating your own point. When people cannot ask academic questions at an intellectual forum, they should stay seated. (Props to the one MSA representative who not only had the most intelligent question of the night, but also provided the attendees with some much needed comic relief referring to the “bling” he would be wearing if the MSA were supported by the Saudi government.)

I’m not saying the event went perfectly. Nothing like this can ever be expected to. However, I do think that despite the lack of self-restraint shown by all parties in the Q&A session, the event went very well and provided a good start to a much needed discussion.

I stand by my original decision to bring Horowitz to campus, and I’d do it again in a second.

Sara Mikolajczak ([email protected]) is the chair of the University of Wisconsin College Republicans.