We give university chapters of our organization discretion in planning their events on campus, hoping they’ll use that freedom wisely to promote a responsible vision for U.S. leadership in the world. Unfortunately, one of our chapters at the University of Chicago recently used that freedom to make our country less safe. The event, entitled “Free Speech and the Danish Cartoons,” displayed the Danish cartoons that sparked controversy worldwide and then had a cadre of free speech advocates explain why the media should have broadcast these images more widely.

In my last blog entry, I wrote about how the media and politicians were basking in our differences, while Americans across the country were taking our similarities seriously. My hope was that the common sense of Americans might trickle up to the Washington divisionaries. But this event at U Chicago is definitely a set back to my thesis that our citizens are more mature than our leaders. On the Danish cartoons issue, it’s been our leaders in Washington who appear to understand the national security imperative of tolerance and understanding.

And its the students at this recent event at the University of Chicago who do not get it. They believe the decision by our government and media leaders not to show the cartoons was mistake. According to them, “our inaction leads to bigger responses from radical Islamists” and so we need to broadcast these cartoons as far as possible so “they” know we’re not cowards. We need to speak freely no matter the consequences.

I think this is the dead wrong way to understand the cartoon issue. There’s no conflict between the cartoons and free speech. No serious leaders are saying that people do not have the right to show the cartoons. They are saying they should not abuse that right. The point is simply that if a cartoon is that offensive to so many — and the potential point of the cartoon could be made as effectively in many less offensive ways — smart people should choose to get out their point less offensively. The real question is thus whether responsible institutions in the media “should” (not “can”) hold themselves to a higher standard.

To this argument, the free speech advocates at U Chicago respond that the Declaration of Independence caused violence when it was published but it was the right thing to do anyway. The fundamental disagreement I have is that the Declaration of Independence had purpose and was necessary to the freedom of a new country. Thus, the Declaration was worth the rebelliousness it caused. What do the cartoons do or say that cannot be done or said in a way that is far less offensive to Muslims? Why then offend people unnecessarily through specifically using visual images which blaspheme a religion’s values? Just to exercise “free speech”? I think in the increasingly interconnected world in which we live we need to be as tolerant as possible wherever such tolerance does not interfere with our ability to effectively communicate our own views. Here, there are so many other options to communicate, I am puzzled as to why the cartoonists would pick the most offensive means.

I should emphasize that the killings over the cartoons were absolutely wrong and against the fundamental teachings of Islam. But two wrongs do make a right. The fact that a few fanatics have reacted so unjustifiably as to kill does not make the cartoons’ intolerance justifiable. Both are manifestations of intolerance that moderates must speak out against. And, thankfully, there were moderates in Washington who reached across the aisle to speak out with that positive vision.

I am truly disappointed by this event and only hope that many more activities that we are doing as an organization to promote a vision of “Hope not Hate” will help to overcome the hate exhibited by U Chicago students’ display of blasphemous cartoons. On Wednesday night, the CUNY Graduate Center chapter of our organization will be hosting a talk on the Challenges Facing the Islamic World. This talk will focus on the challenges we confront in our relationship with the Islamic world and how we can work effectively and collaboratively to solve them. The first step will be thinking maturely about how we work together to root out the intolerance in both of our societies.