Harvard has seen its fair share of debate and controversy lately, and frankly it’s been fun to watch. But amidst the yelling and finger-pointing, the Faculty meetings and the open letters, I’ve been disheartened by a destructive undercurrent in many of the criticisms being made by members of the Harvard community; disagreements are getting too personal and have created an atmosphere of intimidation.

Of course, the biggest controversy on campus has been the furor over University President Lawrence H. Summers’ comments on gender and science. But the problem of “overdoing it” was also evident last week after Jada Pinkett Smith’s “heteronormative” comments at Cultural Rhythms. I am not arguing that critics of both Summers and Pinkett Smith are wrong or raising unimportant issues; to the contrary, the recent discussions at Harvard about gender and sexuality are immensely significant within and beyond the gates of Harvard.

The problem is not with the topics we are debating; the problem is how we are debating them. It’s not that the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and Supporters Alliance (BGLTSA) was offended by Pinkett Smith’s comments and wanted to further a discussion about sensitivity to issues of sexuality. The problem is that they then demanded a letter of apology from the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations. I support Harvard students voicing their opinions against Summers’ comments, but the recent motion to censure Summers goes too far.

These criticisms go too far because they dissuade people from voicing opinions that might be contrary to Harvard’s social norms—not because the people have been persuaded otherwise, but because a culture exists that makes those views socially taboo. This creates an atmosphere where people will disengage from important debates because they feel intimidated to voice their opinions. To borrow from John Stuart Mill, the only way for an idea to prove its worth is for it to be challenged within an open marketplace of ideas. In such a marketplace, any idea, regardless of how abhorrent we might find it, should be presented and allowed to compete.

Harvard has a particularly vested interest in maintaining an open marketplace of ideas. Our school motto, Veritas, reminds us that this institution’s primary goal is to pursue “truth.” To do so, we must be willing to allow ideas to enter into our discourse, regardless of how fervently we might dislike them.

When members of the Harvard community start taking criticisms too far, ideas and perspectives will be expelled from debate, and we will have a much weaker and less informative discussion on issues of overwhelming importance. If we are willing to go so far as to censure this University’s president for views contrary to our own, then how can we expect any other members of our community to dare put forth ideas of his own that challenge social norms? If we embarrass speakers by requiring that they apologize for comments that were offensive-by-omission (it’s not what Jada said, it’s what she didn’t say), how can we ever expect a future speaker to dare speak to a Harvard audience—and say something meaningful?

There is nothing wrong with criticism; to the contrary it motivates us to think more and work harder. However, we do a disservice to important debates about gender equality and sexuality when we take our criticisms too far. We must be willing to debate any idea, regardless of how abhorrent it might seem, and we must do everything we can as a community to facilitate that sort of debate.

Harry I. Ritter ’07, a Crimson editorial editor, is a government concentrator in Dunster House.