Don't punish prof. for ill-chosen words

Stern professor Tunku Varadarajan is a very smart man. So when he used the phrase "going Muslim" in a Nov. 9 Forbes.com column responding to the shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, he had to know it would cause a reaction.

And it has. Muslim students have spoken out against Varadarajan and called on NYU President John Sexton and Stern dean Thomas Cooley to repudiate his remarks. Sexton called the remarks "offensive" and said he disagrees with them. Both administrators defended Varadarajan's right to expression and said opposing viewpoints are integral to an academic environment, even if certain viewpoints are offensive.

The WSN Editorial Board does not agree with Varadarajan's use of the phrase "going Muslim." We think it stereotypes an entire culture and paints negative connotations to its beliefs. Varadarajan called his views "quite mainstream." This is a reasonable claim, considering the strong anti-Muslim sentiment that has pervaded this country since Sept. 11. But this does not justify his negative stereotypes, and we condemn his words.

Having said that, we do support Cooley and Sexton's decision not to sanction Varadarajan. We believe that every viewpoint from students, faculty and administration is just as valid as any other. We wrote as much two months ago in discussing prospective law professor Thio Li-ann, whose stance on gay rights drew considerable opposition among NYU students: "Intellectual discourse is rooted in conflicting opinions, and for this to happen, people of disagreeing perspectives and paradigms must come together to engage one another ... No viewpoint will ever satisfy all sides, but each belief is as valid as any other."

We think the same principle applies here, and it is comforting to see both Cooley and Sexton respond to this pressure in the true spirit of academic freedom. Both were quoted saying that this type of conflicting viewpoint is integral to academic dialogue, and we strongly support both administrators in taking such a reasonable stance on this controversy. Rather than blindly reacting to the situation, both seem to realize the value of bringing opposing viewpoints together into one setting for the sake of intellectual stimulation.

We hope this controversy will give NYU students the chance to examine their own beliefs and prejudices. Given NYU's prominence and clear, admirable dedication to a variety of opinions in the academic community, this type of controversy is bound to happen again. But we hope students will look inward to try to see things from a perspective other than their own.