Rev. Bruce Shipman, an Episcopal priest living in Groton, has been a frequent Day letter writer and occasional guest commentator. He has often used these opportunities to criticize Israeli policy as it concerns the Palestinians and sees those policies as blocking opportunities for Mideast peace.

His writings often generate strong responses from other letter writers who disagree and have much different opinions as to who holds the primary blame for continuing Israeli-Palestinian strife.

This is the purpose of The Day's Opinion section, to provide a clash of ideas and policy positions, giving readers the opportunity to see all sides of an argument and reach their own conclusions. It is what free speech is about.

It is distressing, therefore, to learn that Rev. Shipman has apparently been forced from his position as Episcopalian chaplain at Yale University for something he wrote for another newspaper - The New York Times.

Rev. Shipman was writing in response to a Times guess commentary by Deborah E. Lipstadt, professor of Modern Jewish History and Holocaust Studies at Emory University. In her commentary, Professor Lipstadt expressed concerns about the growth of anti-Semitism in Europe, citing several examples.

"It would be simple to link all this outrage to events in Gaza," she wrote. "But this trend has been evident for a while."

Rev. Shipman's letter responded:

"Deborah E. Lipstadt makes far too little of the relationship between Israel's policies in the West Bank and Gaza and growing anti-Semitism in Europe and beyond.

"The trend to which she alludes parallels the carnage in Gaza over the last five years, not to mention the perpetually stalled peace talks and the continuing occupation of the West Bank.

"As hope for a two-state solution fades and Palestinian casualties continue to mount, the best antidote to anti-Semitism would be for Israel's patrons abroad to press the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for final-status resolution to the Palestinian question."

The first part of Rev. Shipman's letter is fair debate. Professor Lipstadt concludes that observers are wrong if they "link all this (anti-Semitic) outrage" to Israeli policies toward Gaza and the Palestinians. Rev. Shipman disagrees, saying the professor makes "far too little" of the link between the Israeli policies and the growth of anti-Semitism (in Europe and beyond).

It is in the last paragraph that Rev. Shipman's logic crumbles. It blames the victims of anti-Semitism. If they would only pressure Mr. Netanyahu to reach a two-state solution with the Palestinians, it would provide an "antidote" to the hatred Jews face.

It is insulting to suggest Jews should act as one. In reality, opinions among Jewish people run the gamut from strong support for Israeli policies to condemnation of them. It is outrageous to propose that any Jewish person should adopt an opinion as a means of reducing the anti-Semitism he or she faces.

The cure to anti-Semitism is enlightenment and tolerance. The necessary antidote is exposing all forms of prejudicial behavior and providing it no excuse or rationalization.

As strongly as we disagree with Rev. Shipman's opinion, we do not see it as anti-Semitic. It does not express hostility toward or discrimination against Jews. Rather, its twisted logic makes Jews culpable for the hostility and discrimination they face. And it is not surprising that this misguided position generated significant and passionate criticism.

Did the Board of Governors of the Episcopal Church of Yale go too far by, in Rev. Shipman's words, making it "clear that I should resign or be fired?"

We think so.

Some contend Rev. Shipman was wrong to reference his Yale connection in the letter, but such disclosures are common. There is nothing in the letter to suggest the opinions are anyone's but his own.

As for forcing him out for the ideas he expresses, we point to the long academic tradition that differing ideas should be tolerated, even offensive ones. Otherwise, members of a university community can become fearful of stating positions that may not conform to some perceived ideal. The pursuit of knowledge suffers, replaced by a demand for conformity.

The better course is to attack the ideas, not banish the messenger.