²ÝÝ®ÊÓƵAPP¹ÙÍø

Yale sophomore Nate Zelinsky spent last week being anonymously attacked on the Internet and called a racist and classist—backlash from an he authored on Sunday in the Yale Daily News. But Zelinsky isn't complaining; in fact, he's encouraging it.

On Friday, he penned , this time defending his anonymous critics. In his article, Zelinsky extols the virtues of the marketplace of ideas and free speech on college campuses, while taking Yale and its student body to task for failing to do the same. He points to the of a preacher based on his views on homosexuality, as well as for chants outside of the Yale Women's Center. Sadly, he was also able to point to a that espoused an "if you can't beat ‘em, join ‘em" approach: since other groups embrace punishing speech offensive to them, so should mine.

Zelinsky understands the special role that higher education occupies in the marketplace of ideas, and that the appropriate response to offensive speech is not censorship, but more speech:

Our society protects such speech, however incorrigible, because we have the right to offend. Yale has a unique obligation to protect all forms of dialogue - regardless of content - because of a university's role as a marketplace and incubator of ideas.

. . .

The banning of offensive (as opposed to truly dangerous) speech discourages the most effective method of combating such expression: more speech. Refutation and counterprotest should be the mantra of the day.

To read the (excellent) full article, click .