Anyone recognize a pattern? Someone at Stanford invites a speaker to talk. The speaker, however, happens to be a particularly controversial figure, with views that offend certain groups on campus.

A petition is raised. Thousands sign it. A petition is raised against that petition. Thousands sign that one, too. People write op-eds for or against the speaker.

Eventually, the speaker comes, maybe some people protest and, after a couple weeks, people forget about it.

We went through this process when former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was appointed as a Hoover Institution distinguished visiting fellow, and it came up again with the presence of Basque President Juan Jose Ibarretxe and gay pornography star Michael Lucas on campus yesterday. This is not constructive, and it is time that we reevaluate how we look at controversial speakers who come to campus.

Here is one truth that will not change: people have a right to speak their mind. We must remind ourselves that there is a reason that freedom of speech is enshrined in the very first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, one of Stanford’s roles is to act as a forum for dialogue, and such dialogue requires argument, discussion and hopefully consensus, all of which depend on the freedom of speech.

If Stanford enters the ethical morass of choosing what sort of freedom of speech is acceptable and what is not, we will bury ourselves in that arrogance. If we begin to refuse speakers simply because we disagree with them, we lose our validity as a forum of debatable thought. We applaud President Hennessy’s office, which has declared, in reference to Ibarretxe’s talk, that “President Hennessy’s analysis and personal opinion . . . [do] not have a bearing on this invitation.” That is absolutely the way it should be.

That being said, we understand the grievances raised by offended groups at Stanford. Lucas, for example, has publicly expressed his disdain for Islam, and many students are perturbed that the University will be providing someone who splashes vitriol on their way of life a megaphone to broadcast his views. This is completely understandable.

As was stated above, we believe that Lucas must be allowed to speak freely. The first amendment, however, goes both ways. While an individual like Lucas has the right to speak his mind, his audience has the equal right to completely disregard what he says and to fervently oppose his opinions.

This is precisely the reason why Stanford brings speakers to campus — to increase debate and discussion campus-wide. Protests against individuals or speakers like Rumsfeld, Ibarretxe and Lucas should not, therefore, demand that an individual’s invitation to speak be retracted. Instead, protests should be focused on that individual’s views. We must critically look at a speaker’s stated positions and goals. We must craft a rational argument, fueled by passion, to show where we agree and disagree.

This is the intention of free speech: to provide a basis for discussion and constructive argument. If we refuse to hear someone out, we have no basis for arguing back. We may even be assuming something incorrect about that person’s views. You can never know until you listen or talk to them. This is why the pledges by petitioners to boycott controversial speakers is so counterproductive. In the end, even if one person’s opinion is completely irreconcilable with a second person’s, at least each will have learned a little more about the basis for the other’s beliefs.

One dorm list uses as part of its template email, “I think that we should discuss everything, all the time, as often and as vehemently as possible.” It’s a good motto to live by, as long as those discussions stem from facts and not falsehoods made up in the moment of passion.

The bottom line: let’s no longer debate whether or not speakers should be allowed to speak on campus. Instead, let’s debate the actual policies and opinions of these speakers. Let’s actually attend their talks, and let’s go prepared. If even one Stanford student goes ready and willing to intelligently challenge a speaker’s views, it will have a positive impact on the level and style of debate and hopefully will educate everyone involved, from speaker to faculty to students.