Chad Hayward almost has it right when he says that the “hippies from Time for Peace” have as much a right to display their tools during Veishea as the LGBTAA have a right to post sexually explicit posters around campus. I feel I must, however, address the “almost.”

Leaving aside for the moment details such as whether as a matter of ISU policy Time for Peace were “allowed” to demonstrate in a particular manner or individuals were “allowed” to deface or remove posters put up by the LGBTAA, the clear lesson of history in this country and others is that the best response to offensive speech is not squelching of that speech, but more speech.

This is especially important on a university campus. By using additional speech to express their objections to the Semper Fidelis display, Time for Peace is on far firmer ground than those who removed or defaced the Everyone Has a Right To Love posters. Mr. Hayward objects to not being asked whether he wanted to see these posters on his way to class. Imagine such a standard.

This is the club usually wielded by the right to object to “political correctness” turned around. The arbitrary removal of the posters is no different than the shouting down of speakers at a podium. There would be hardly any political speech (including posters) if such speech could be suppressed because some part of the university community found it disturbing.

Universities are marketplaces of ideas where we listen to one another and exchange ideas, not silence one another. If Mr. Hayward finds homosexuality frightening or disgusting, he is welcome to write letters to the editor as he has done, or to start his own “Straights and Their Friends” group to advocate for universal heterosexuality. He is as unlikely to convince me of his opinion as I am to convert him to mine on this particular issue, but perhaps he could convince others on campus to be offended by whom some people choose to love in fully consenting relationships.

Furthermore, if Mr. Hayward wants to be taken seriously in the marketplace of ideas, he is better off using somewhat more serious language. He refers to the “Everyone Has The Right To Love” posters as “porn.” Such rhetoric is childish at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst. These were head shots of fully dressed couples kissing. Provocative? Yes. Pornography? Hardly. Gilman Hall, where both of us spend considerable time, is surely not a hotbed of sexually explicit behavior. But if Mr. Hayward takes a quick look around between classes, he will see real, in-the-flesh kisses occurring in the halls every day, not merely the photographs he calls “porn.” I am not afraid. I hope he isn’t either.

William Jenks

Associate professor

Chemistry