Illustration by Holly Randall

The crowd has grown belligerent, but Jed Smock remains in his seat, legs crossed and unperturbed. The small congregation of students has encircled him menacingly, perforating his speech with cutting verbal barbs. He pauses as a student hurls a profanity-laden insult, and a small hint of a smile plays across his lips. On this windy Tuesday afternoon, he almost seems to be enjoying this.

Since his calamitous debut on Monday, a debacle that very nearly resulted in his arrest, Smock has created quite a stir on the Alumni Plaza. Spewing rhetoric that is ignorant at best, and anti-Semitic and misogynistic at worst, the evangelist has engendered no small amount of student outrage. But while most of Smock's commentary is certainly shameful, it was the student response Tuesday afternoon that was most disappointing.

Although some students chose to remain silent during Smock's oratory, a sizable faction had taken it upon itself to ensure that he wasn't even able to speak. Interruption was the name of the game, and the students seemed to prize vulgar four-letter words over anything that might even closely resemble intelligent discourse.

Damion LeeNataliColumnist

Though they would inevitably claim that they were shouting down a voice of ignorance, it should go without saying that this manner of disagreeing with an opinion is ultimately unacceptable. Much of what Smock has to say is, admittedly, radical, but the mere fact that his views fall beyond the bounds of what could be considered mainstream does not justify behavior that effectively prohibits his ability to express himself.

Skeptics will undoubtedly assert that Smock's rhetoric is so deplorable that it deserves no form of tolerance. On the contrary. While Smock should be granted the right to speak, no fathomable conception of tolerance would dictate that he be granted our acquiescence. Simply put, students should agree to disagree without the immature wrangling.

Of course, religious conservatives might be surprised to hear this from a columnist that only two weeks ago rebuked a similar Alumni Plaza preacher for his messages of exclusivity. After all, that column spawned no end of critical letters to the editor, but most of them seemed to miss the overarching point - tolerance.

One letter in particular said, "By definition, tolerance is usually associated with 'putting up with error,' not 'being accepting of all views.'" Nonetheless, while letter writers are certainly at liberty to define tolerance for themselves, this author prefers to use the definition from the dictionary - "The capacity for, or the practice of, recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others."

It was working within this framework that I recognized the preacher's prerogative to proselytize, respectfully listened to what he had to say, and came to the conclusion that I simply did not agree. Be that as it may, I did not request that he be removed from the UA Mall, nor did I choose to childishly deride him, both of which would smack of, well, intolerance.

Our nation's political climate might help to explain students' lack of tolerance for Smock's message, but it still does little to rectify the larger problem. In an illustration of wanton oversimplification, Democrats and Republicans alike have assumed a "with us or against us" mentality by drawing a proverbial line in the sand. But to hold your beliefs as absolutely correct, while dubbing those across the line as absolutely erroneous, hinders progress in a way that few other obstacles could.

Doubtless, there are those who would wish to continue showering Smock in vulgar vitriol, but their behavior resembles nothing more than a modern-day Tower of Babel - according to the book of Genesis, the ancient people of Shinar attempted to build a mighty tower to reach the heavens, but they were thwarted when their inability to speak the same language dealt a fatal blow to the tower's construction.

Idealistic college students and cynical bigots like Smock will always disagree, and it's hardly an abuse of analogy to say that they ultimately converse in radically different languages. But willfully consigning ourselves to speaking different tongues by prohibiting people like Smock from preaching, we lose all hope of reaching our greater aims, be they divine or otherwise. The world's greatest accomplishments, after all, have been forged on the anvil of collaboration.

As college students, and as the future of America, we are even now beginning to build our own tower. The question is, can we all learn to speak as one?

Damion LeeNatali is a political science and history sophomore. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.