Public debate would be a good thing here: there's too much screaming and righteous pot-banging on both sides. But, if the debate is to be fair and open (as opposed to being merely a "show trial" or a forum for one side's opinion), then in my opinion it needs to adress the following questions:
1) What is the meaning of "free speech" in an academic institution? Does it mean absolute freedom to say whatever you want, or only to say things that don't offend certain groups?
2) Can professors be allowed to exercise absolute freedom of speech, given their potentially influential position? (I say "potentially" because in my experience some professors have no meaningful influence on anything...)
3) If professors can't exercise absolute freedom of speech, who else should be prevented from exercising it?
In my opinion the stupidest, least effective response to these people is to act like the fascist warmongers they deem us to be, by indulging in intellectual thuggery. Hate mail and demands for resignation just reinforce their argument that the military and its supporters are trying to stifle discussion and debate. Instead, drag them out into the broad light of day and challenge them to defend their positions in open debate. I think we'll find that they are very good at dominating ill-informed undergraduate minds, and preaching to the converted down at the tea house, but not all that good against informed, reasonable skeptics.
Cheers
