In any diverse, free society, a wide range of views should be freely expressed. Such is the inevitable result of the exercise of freedom of thought — all indispensable liberal values. Differences of opinion are signs of a healthy society. But how do we mediate between such differences — or "divisions," if you like?

In a free society such as the United States, each individual or group puts views forward and attempts to convince others. I think taxes and government spending are too high, you think they aren't high enough, and we try to persuade each other and the broader public to adopt our view.

This is by far the best way humankind has found to mediate between such differences — or divisions, if you like.

A necessary condition for this is that we hear other people's opinions, and allow them to be heard. And this is why the recent events in Rochester referenced by Erin Nystrom in "Standing up against division has its costs" (April 26) are so disquieting.

Rochester Golf and Country Club signed a contract with Center of the American Experiment (CAE) to host an event on March 15. On the afternoon of March 13, the country club informed us the event had been canceled, claiming it "generated controversy among Club members." Needless to say, the contract they signed does not offer this as a valid reason for cancellation alongside, say, "acts of war or acts of God" — never mind with less than 48 hours' notice.

This controversy, as Nystrom concedes in her commentary, was generated largely by Nystrom herself. And what was the event that she found so intolerable? It would have featured our public safety policy fellow, Jeff Van Nest, a 20-year veteran of the FBI, talking with Olmsted County Sheriff Kevin Torgerson and Rochester Police Chief Jim Franklin in front of a local audience. (While complaining about "division," Nystrom twice refers to us — her fellow Minnesotans — as an "outside" group, despite the fact that we have a chapter in Rochester.)

Yes, that's it. This was the most "vanilla" event the CAE has hosted in my five years here.

It is true, as Nystrom says, that crime is a "hot-button" issue. A poll we conducted last year found that 81% of respondents were personally concerned about crime in Minnesota. But the responsibility for that lies with the people actually committing crimes, not with us.

Trying to make a politically inconvenient issue go away by preventing people from talking about it makes as much sense as trying to put out a fire by turning off the fire alarm. This was certainly not the attitude of that great Minnesota liberal Hubert Humphrey, who said that liberals "must let the hardhats, Mr. and Mrs. Middle America, know that they understand what is bugging them, that they too condemn crime and riots and violence and extreme turbulence, that they scorn extremists of the left as well as extremists of the right."

Too often these days people claim to be against "division" when what they are really upset about is the fact that people have different opinions from theirs. Their crocodile tears about division — or differences, if you like — are just an excuse to stop people from saying things they don't like. A diverse, free society should reject such intolerance.

John Phelan is an economist at the Center of the American Experiment.