Free speech" is one of those terms which, when uttered, stirs the soul and awakens the latent patriotism in every American. It's a fundamental principle of the modern democratic system, forged into the legal fabric of our government by the Bill of Rights and the subject of valedictory speeches in every high school between Washington and Walla Walla.

"Equal rights" is one of those terms which, when uttered, stirs the soul and awakens the latent patriotism in every American. It's a fundamental principle of the modern democratic system, forged into the legal fabric of our government by the Bill of Rights, and the subject of valedictory speeches in every high school between Washington and Walla Walla.

What's an editorialist to do? These are two of my favorite ideals, and usually, they come as sort of a package deal--I coo with delight each time The Alliance of Parents Against Cuss Words in Rock Music mounts yet another doomed campaign.

But every now and then, you come across a situation where these revered principles come into conflict. For instance, should skinheads be allowed to distribute racist propaganda in the streets? Should reactionary fundamentalist groups like AALARM be allowed to post homophobic posters? Should prominent Harvard professors be chastised for chauvinist commentary?

Recently, a student paper at Westfield State College in Massachusetts caused a ruckus by printing an advertisement for a bar hiring female dancers. According to the article in The Crimson, many students were outraged. Westfield student government secretary Kelly O'Neill wrote in an editorial, "When something is offensive or slanderous, it should not be said or printed." Another student, Owen Broadhurt, likened it to printing an ad for "the Ku Klux Klan, American Nazi Party, D'Aubisson death squads, or similar hideous miscreants."

Clearly, the ad was a hideous example of poor taste, and the decision to run it displayed a total lack of tact on the part of The Owl, the paper at the center of this controversy. Nevertheless, the reaction of these students was unwarranted. First of all, in these socially aware times an ad as anachronistic as one for topless dancers should be a self-mockery, not deserving of attention from students who have better things to do.

The privilege of free speech is the most fundamental right granted to Americans in the Bill of Rights. It gives every citizen political identity and allows us to be directly involved in policymaking.

The price for this privilege is that we will come across opinions which we disagree with. Every now and then, something is bound to offend us. But we can't throw out two hundred years of Constitutional history every time an advertisement makes you a bit squeamish. There is no belief so repulsive, no opinion so damaging to society that freedom of speech should ever be abridged.

Closer to home, this year's censure of Crimson President Ira E. Stoll bespeaks the same sort of misdirection. True, he offended the entire Crimson staff with a sexually explicit insult. And true, his action was entirely uncalled for and another example of remarkably poor judgement.

But wasn't an apology enough? Wasn't a news story on the front page of The Crimson and the feature page of The Independent enough? An apology to the insulted parties should have sufficed. But somehow things got out of hand. Some editors demanded Stoll's resignation. Others called for his impeachment. Even the letter of censure which resulted was an overreaction to an event which should have been forgotten within a week.

Why is it that the groups to whom freedom of speech is the most important are often the ones which most often complain about offensive speech? Last year, members of the Harvard BGLSA protested the anti-homosexual fliers which AALARM posted. Campus feminists demanded that Frank G. Thomson Professor of Government Harvey C. Mansfield Jr. '53 retract comments made about women in the workplace.

Perhaps America has become too complacent in the 90's. We take our equal rights for granted. Women, accustomed to the the slew of victories accorded them by the feminist movement, are shocked by the mere suggestion of male aggression. If Stoll had been a woman who called three male Crimson editors "pricks," then the moment would have passed without anyone even batting an eye. But reverse the roles, and suddenly a marginally sexual insult becomes the basis for scandal.

Somehow, college students have found enough time in their busy academic schedules to turn themselves into our nation's opinion police. With all due respect to my esteemed Cantabrigian classmates, none of us are so in tune with the will of God that we can act as his messengers of political correctness.

There is a difference between "should not say" and "cannot say." Remarks which perpetuate racist, sexist or homophobic myths should not be said. But other people must have the right to say them. Having differences in opinion is a fundamental human right. Without freedom of expression, the principle of equal rights is meaningless.