The fall semester at Columbia has seen more than its fair share of polarizing events, from Jim Gilchrist’s proposed visit, to President Ahmadinejad’s speech, to the recent spate of bias incidents across campus. Over the past month, many students have expressed frustration at the souring climate at Columbia, and some have rightly criticized the administration—whether by its public response or frequent passivity—for failing to allay such concerns. Next week will mark another such challenge to University, as the Columbia University College Republicans welcome David Horowitz to campus to celebrate “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week.” While we recognize the right of the Republicans to invite him, we believe that this event is intended to drive a political wedge rather than engender meaningful debate and hope that those who oppose Mr. Horowitz’s views do not respond in kind.

“Islamo-Facism Awareness Week” purports to examine a link between Islam, institutionalized violence, and oppression, but its organizers dangerously (if unsurprisingly) conflate extremists who practice Islam with the faith itself—a fallacy sure to negate any potential worth in such a discussion. Yet Horowitz has questioned how a campus community that invited the head of an oppressive regime intent on developing nuclear weapons could refuse him audience on its campus. Such an argument ignores that the World Leaders Forum acts a podium for presidents and prime ministers, not an endorsement of their beliefs or practices. It is one thing to invite a world leader to campus to share his or her views on a variety of global issues, but quite another to celebrate incendiary pundits that generate fear and loathing instead of meaningful discourse.

Many students have expressed distaste for Horowitz and his rhetoric, decrying the event and questioning his right to appear on campus. Indeed, an entire week devoted to denouncing the values and ideas of a particular community—if not in name, then in practice—seems unproductive and is unlikely to offer much insight or change many minds. Students who oppose Horowitz, however, ought to take a more tasteful approach by raising their concerns in a thoughtful manner, asking pointed questions rather than adding vitriol to a polarizing and stagnant debate. While the University is committed to free speech and peaceful protest, we must be mindful of where to draw the line between productive and unproductive dialogue.

The administration, too, must recognize that this event will be held as odious by a significant portion of the student body, and it should respond by reviving the type of discussion forums held in the wake of recent events. In particular, members of Muslim community on campus—many of whom have already grappled with the backlash towards Ahmadinejad’s visit and the fear provoked graffiti incident at the School of International and Public Affairs—must now face further insult in the broad and reckless denouncements of Islam that characterize this “awareness week.” Instead of looking for ways to divide our community further, we should look for ways to create honest discourse that is open and welcoming to all members of the community.