Several weeks ago, a comment appeared on this page attacking the president of the Harvard Republican Club (HRC). The writer, Sahil K. Mahtani ’08, objected to an e-mail the president—identified only as W, though anybody who follows campus politics would have recognized the reference to Stephen E. Dewey ’07—had sent to an open list. The e-mail condemned the “queer movement,” claiming that its ultimate goal was a “man-animal BDSM orgy in Copley square,” that it’s “basically led by the Devil” and that, unfettered, it will result in “victory [for] an ideology of evil that will probably eventually spawn the Antichrist.” Mahtani, a Republican, criticized Dewey harshly—and often quite colorfully—for his e-mail and suggested that HRC’s choice of W as a leader reflected rather poorly on the Club.

I first heard about Mahtani’s comment from several members of the Harvard College Democrats. They felt that Dewey had been wronged and that the Dems should rally to his side. The argument, as I understand it, is that even if Dewey’s beliefs are wrong, he shouldn’t be attacked for them. Like every other member of the Harvard community, Dewey should be able to express unpopular beliefs without being yelled at from the pages of The Crimson. Civility must prevail.

This argument has some surface validity. People from all political persuasions should be entitled to respect. If Mahtani had made disparaging remarks about Dewey’s mother, I would be the first to object. But Mahtani has been criticized for doing exactly what should be done in an environment of free and open debate. Though his criticism was harsh, it was focused on the idiocy of Dewey’s beliefs, not the integrity of his character. If civility demands that we politely stand complacent while public figures on this campus openly trash a movement for equal rights, then screw civility.

I don’t intend to defend every part of Mahtani’s argument. I’m not sure that Dewey is really as inane as his comments—as captured by Mahtani—made him seem. In the past, I thought of Dewey as more of a moderate thinker than many others from his side of the aisle. But that’s not the point. Those who were scandalized by Mahtani’s bluntness need to take a look at their own arguments and ask themselves why, exactly, they were so shocked.

The most common argument I’ve heard against Mahtani’s comment simply doesn’t hold water. Everybody I’ve talked to agrees: Mahtani may be right, but he should have stuck to critiquing Dewey’s ideas rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks. But they have it wrong; Mahtani’s criticism wasn’t an ad hominem attack. It was based entirely on beliefs that Dewey has publicly advocated. Mahtani just pointed out that Dewey’s public comments are radical, misguided and a bit nuts. This kind of thing happens all the time. When leaders, even student leaders, consistently say wacky things, we assume they are a bit wacky. President Bush consistently says and does things that hurt poor people, so Democrats call him heartless. That’s not an ad hominem attack; it’s a logical conclusion drawn from the policies he pursues. As president of the HRC, Dewey is a public figure. When public figures on campus hold wacky beliefs, we have the right to call them out. That’s not an attack; it’s a public service.

Those who were offended by Mahtani’s comment generally agree that it’s okay for Democrats to criticize President Bush—or even Ken Mehlman, Dewey’s equivalent on the national stage—but they feel that such criticism is off limits when it comes to our fellow students. Unfortunately, when Harvard undergraduates publicly air ignorant and offensive beliefs, we tend to give them far more slack than they deserve. For some of us, it appears, loyalty to Harvard comes before responsibility to the broader community. Dewey attacked the queer community, but sadly, many Harvardians seem to think that the fact that he is a member of the Harvard community is somehow a mitigating factor. If Dewey is a bigot, some students seem to say, at least he’s our bigot.

This tendency to prioritize deference to fellow students over honest and open debate reflects Harvard’s deep isolation from the rest of the world. In the real world, the beliefs that folks like Dewey espouse have real victims. Queer individuals continue to face discrimination and violence because of their orientation. Each year, several thousand Americans are victims of hate crimes because of their sexual orientation. It does not help that student leaders at our country’s best-known university refer to those who wish to change this unfortunate status quo as tools of the Antichrist. As Harvard students, we have a responsibility to attack bigotry when it rears its head in our community. We might think that we are showing respect to the Harvard community by pulling our punches when fellow students cross the line, but, in reality, we are showing a profound disrespect to a broader community that still faces serious injustice and brutal discrimination.

It’s time to talk about political issues like they matter. People across the country suffer because of the ideology that motivates people like Dewey. Though he has every right to voice his opinion, those who disagree with him on these important issues have an equal right and, furthermore, a great responsibility to fight him.

Samuel M. Simon ’06 is a social studies concentrator in Eliot House. His column appears on alternate Thursdays.