Several weeks ago, sexually-explicit graffiti was found on message boards belonging to gay students and tutors living in Winthrop and Mather Houses. The anonymous scrawled messages, too vulgar to reprint here, were unambiguously intended to harass ó and perhaps even intimidate ó  the individuals they targeted. Harvard officials have responded admirably; denouncing the acts of vandalism, the Masters of both Winthrop and Mather made it immediately clear that such behavior is unacceptable.

And rightly so. There is no place for such harassment at Harvard. Gay or straight, no member of the Harvard community should be forced to confront slogans which would be disgusting if scrawled on a bathroom wall, not to mention a public message board. The vulgarity of these acts is matched only by their cowardice, and if caught the vandals should be suitably disciplined by the Ad Board.

That said, the recent graffiti outbreak raises important questions about homosexuality as a subject of campus discourse. All students, regardless of their political perspective, should condemn cruel and intimidating harassment along the lines of the Winthrop and Mather incidents. But all too often at Harvard, any criticism of homosexuality ó even when made logically and reasonably by well-intentioned observers ó is automatically dismissed as ìhomophobic,î and therefore ìprejudiced,î ìbigoted,î etc. When it comes to sexual orientation, the Universityís stated commitment to free inquiry and diverse viewpoints seems to evaporate into thin air.

The demonization of any opposition to homosexuality can be seen in the recent University pamphlet on sexual orientation. Entitled ìA Community of Equals,î it defines ìhomophobiaî as ìprejudice against homosexualsî which is ìbased largely on fear and a lack of awareness.î No doubt in some cases this is true, but more often objections to homosexuality stem from religious or philosophical convictions. It serves no one to dismiss these sincerely-held beliefs out of hand, without even pretending to offer a rebuttal.

The BGLTSA has also been guilty of stifling debate on homosexuality ó last year it canceled co-sponsorship of an IOP panel discussion because Professor Harvey C. Mansfield, an opponent of gay rights on philosophical grounds, was slated to act as moderator. So much for the groupís much-touted commitment to diversity.

Homosexuality is among the most sensitive and controversial issues of our time. While there should be zero tolerance for those whose notion of campus discourse consists of vulgar sloganeering, itís also important to realize that there are two sides to this issue, each of which deserves to be heard and responded to. Itís time for an honest and open debate about homosexuality to come out of the closet.