The concept of free speech is championed in our society. That is, it seems, until the speech contradicts one’s deeply held beliefs. Then one faces a choice: the principle of free expression or the comfort of complacency.

This week, Wesleyan will host Haviv Rettig Gur, an Israeli journalist, and if some students have their way, it will be to an audience of no one, a situation which is akin to a UC Berkeley student group banning pro-Zionist speakers. Over the past few days, pro-Palestinian student groups have been circulating flyers discouraging attendance, in essence warning off intellectually curious students from a full range of perspectives. The flyers give the date as “a day we won’t go” and the location as “our campus” where we apparently should “know better.”

To me, this signals an unsettling reluctance to engage with differing opinions. Interestingly, during the fall semester, various departments and networks invited speakers who only held pro-Palestinian views, which fostered a “bubble” discourse. One voice became the only voice. Despite a personal abhorrence for some of the opinions, I attended every event. Why? Because I believe that growth and learning can come only from embracing challenges and respecting dissenting opinions. If you do not hear all sides of an argument, how do you know where you stand? How can you agree or disagree?

Interestingly, in this new semester, thanks to the Government Department and Center for Jewish Studies, the focus has shifted. People with viewpoints vastly different from those heard in the previous months will be addressing the Wesleyan community, providing us all with the challenging yet fulfilling opportunity to engage with perspectives that may fundamentally contradict our own.

The students who made the flyers appear to want to stifle dissenting voices, rather than foster an open dialogue. Are they worried that, because their opinions may be challenged, others will gain a more balanced understanding of the war, one that might differ from the incomplete story currently echoing throughout the halls?

In one of my seminars, “Contemporary U.S. Politics: An Introduction to American Studies” (AMST179), we discussed “The Coddling of the American Mind” and the dangers of cultivating a culture of “safetyism,” where good intentions in childhood and education inadvertently stifle intellectual debate. Unsurprisingly, the class collectively acknowledged that attempting to silence speakers creates a sterile learning environment. It also underestimates students and doesn’t give them the choice to know, much less explore, their values.

Wesleyan stands at a crossroads: we can either succumb to intimidation, allowing a few students to stifle First Amendment rights and create a community devoid of intellectual debate, or assert ourselves as a place that welcomes diverse viewpoints. Our response serves as a critical litmus test, both for us and for other institutions of higher learning.

Attending these events doesn’t mean you necessarily agree with the speakers. Instead, it means that you are intellectually curious and want a better understanding of a complex issue. As for clubs like SJP (Wesleyan Students for Justice in Palestine) and those who agree with them, I urge you to attend, to come armed with probing questions as some of us did last semester and will do again.

This will bring up another critical question: Is Wesleyan a school for everyone, or just some? If the former, we must collectively read, debate, learn, challenge ideas, and, most importantly, tolerate unfavorable reactions to our informed opinions. At times this will be challenging and uncomfortable; however, such challenges are inherent elements of the foundational tenets of higher education.

As Wesleyan students, we must strive to associate ourselves with open-mindedness rather than repugnance for diverse perspectives.

Charlie November is a member of the class of 2027 and can be reached at cnovember@wesleyan.edu.