Quixotically have we tilted at the windmill of racism as of late.

What one might call the recent “squinty scandal” has, in one way or another, uncovered what appears to have been a festering sore beneath the surface of the skin of Iowa State’s society. Civilization is but a thin veil, able to be pulled from our eyes by a multitude of events, such as a wayward and innocently intended comment, revealing the ugly truth lying underneath. Regardless of the fickle nature of civilization, as a civilized society we must endeavor to maintain that veil as long as possible with what artifices are at our disposal.

It is not without great irony that one such artifice, and perhaps the most powerful of all, is the First Amendment.

The various divisions within the Daily are rather disconnected and operate fairly independently from one another. As an opinion columnist, I have nothing to do with the “Just Sayin’s” or the final editing and production of the product that you this moment hold in your hands reading. I don’t even know who many of the students are who do those things.

Curiously, however, I find myself at a bizarre intersection of the multitude of varied viewpoints on our scandal. We opinion writers had nothing to do with the “Just Sayin’s,” but it is within our literary territory that the battle rages. No matter what your own opinion regarding the scandal may be, one need only to have paid the merest superficial attention to the Daily’s opinion section this past week to see these many viewpoints.

Some of you think the Daily is the purveyor of racism. Others think we made an innocent indiscretion. Many called for the elimination of the “Just Sayin’s” while many more simultaneously sent in new “Just Sayin’s” in response. The controversy bled over into the Daily’s opinion division too, with some students claiming our opinion columns to be the equal in iniquity to the allegedly racist “Just Sayin’s.”

Censorship in some form, including censoring the opinion section, was and still is the most often demanded solution.

The First Amendment is that proverbial riddle wrapped in an enigma; the ultimate irony of ironies. What allows people to communicate and educate freely — a public freedom necessary to the function of a healthy republic — also allows elements of society with less savory views to openly disperse their radicalism. The First Amendment, therefore, is both the disease and the cure.

It is the cure part that Americans seem to have forgotten in this debate.

We view events through the lens of our private experiences, so in order to paint the bigger picture of how the world actually is, we must gather and speak and discuss issues rationally with others. We must read and write articles and columns and books. We must listen and learn and adjust our views, or work to adjust the views of others. You may not like what others say or write, but how would you even know there was a problem if they weren’t able or failed to make their opinions publicly known?

The First Amendment is a two-way street. You have absolutely no right to not be offended, so suck it up and deal with it like an adult. But what you do have the right to do is fight back with free speech, free press and free assembly of your own. Hold those whose views you disagree with accountable for their opinions. Have a discussion and make them defend their ideas. This is how facts are uncovered, after all.

We cannot discover problems and therefore act to solve them if we kill our ability to interact with censorship.

In a recent public meeting on racism, my editor defended the fact that our columns aren’t laced up and down with disclaimers that our opinions are our opinions, saying that such should be self-evident. The journalism school’s director, Michael Bugeja, criticized this, saying it wasn’t self-evident. With respect to Bugeja, that’s wrong. If the inch-tall letters saying “OPINION” at the top of this page isn’t clear enough, I’d be happy to provide a dictionary to anyone who doesn’t know what “opinion” means.

Bugeja was absolutely correct, however, that the First Amendment requires accountability. To engage me in discussion, you first must know it was me whose ideas you read or heard. This is why we columnists print our names and email addresses on every column. How can you debate a public idea with an anonymous person after all?

It is because of this anonymity that the “Just Sayin’s” have been rightly removed, not because of complaints. The problem wasn’t truly what was said, but rather that we cannot speak to the author and question his thoughts. And this is why the opinion columns will continue to be published — hopefully, dear God — without any stupid, politically correct disclaimers. You can talk back to a columnist, but you can’t talk back to a “Just Sayin’.”

The next time you encounter ideas you vehemently disagree with, don’t call for censorship. The solution to free speech problems is more free speech.