Martin H. Peretz, the current editor-in-chief of The New Republic, recently generated a small media firestorm for comments he made in a Sept. 4 online editorial. Two particular sentences were the root of the controversy: “But, frankly, Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims… So, yes, I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse.” Peretz later issued an apology denouncing the extreme extent of his second sentence, but held that his assertion regarding the cheapness of Muslim life was valid.

Separate from this incident, Peretz’s family and friends have proposed to announce a new research fellowship in his name, stirring much debate. We strongly believe that Harvard should accept this research fund in Peretz’s name, for a number of reasons.

First, Peretz taught and studied at Harvard, and the university should welcome the donation, which would allow undergraduates to pursue academic research. As long as there is no discriminatory mechanism built into the research fund and everyone has equal access to it, the donor is of less importance than the educational opportunities it will promote.

Second, it is worth noting that Harvard has received donations from controversial figures in the past and used the money for good ends. For example, Taubman Hall at the Harvard Kennedy School was donated by a man who served 10 months in jail for anti-trust convictions. Moreover, Harvard named a professorship in Yiddish Literature for Martin Peretz in 1993—a professorship that we also believe should not be revoked.

Though we support the university accepting the fellowship, we do not support Peretz’s blog post. His statement that, “Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims” is an oversimplification; his point may have begun with a kernel of truth but has been generalized to the point where it is not true. For this reason, we believe that Harvard should appropriately distance itself from Peretz’s controversial statements—denouncing them if need be. And we strongly condemn his original statement questioning whether Muslims are worthy of the First Amendment. The fact that he apologized is insufficient, especially because the apology came only after people responded angrily. Yet we feel strongly that Harvard can adequately separate the fellowship from his comments, resulting in a fellowship that will help students.

Lots of good can come from this donation, however controversial the figure behind it may be. It would be a shame to discount Peretz’s entire body of work and intellectual contributions due to two unfortunate sentences.