Ed Morgan is a Professor of Law at the University of Toronto. In this fascinating column, he relates two recent experiences which persuaded him that rational, informed debate is not always the norm in the ivory tower.

There was, first, a conference focused on the issue of free speech; you should definitely read how that led to Morgan questioning his long-held views on the regulation of hate speech. Then there is his role on the advisory board of a conference which plans to address the question of whether there should be one state or two in Israel-Palestine.

Writes Morgan:

I harbour no illusions about the actual debate. The idea of “two states” embraces Jewish and Palestinian self-determination and is at the heart of any potential peace process, while the notion of “one state” is deployed by Israel’s enemies as a rhetorical tactic to undermine the Jewish state. But in a U.S. presidential election season in which Joe Biden can take on Sarah Palin and Barack Obama can square off against John McCain, I told myself that we should at least engage the debate rather than shut it down. With a view to being one of the few pro-Zionist members of a background advisory committee, I decided to fight the fight from the inside, trying to ensure that the conference is one of engagement rather than polemics.

But my one state/two state, red state/blue state analogy is turning out to be as naïve as a Dr. Seuss rhyme. The core group that thought up the conference are perfectly good scholars at Osgoode Hall and Queen’s University who hold a genuine interest in debating alternative forms of democracy in the Israeli and Palestinian context. But the guests are starting to outnumber the hosts, and the cynical edge of the “one state” crowd is showing as the proposed speakers start to bear their anti-Israel teeth.

Do read it all.