Imagine I began this piece by declaring Brown v. Board of Education was ruled wrongfully. Further, suppose I provided no justification for this outlandish beliefs. Most of you would drop this paper like a hot brick. You might literally hurl it after reading such inflammatory rubbish and, at the very least, would naturally be inclined to think poorly of me.

In this hypothetical situation, you’d be right to go with your gut feeling. Ideas are not floating abstractions. Human beings, as rational creatures, are responsible for the views they espouse.

Any person – and their dog – can believe whatever he or she would like to believe. But set aside the wishy-washy platitudes about free expression, the First Amendment and all that jazz. We rightfully judge others by what they say and, more to the point, how they say it.

Most will concede this is unavoidable. But they will say that you should avoid talking about it to other people – if you know what’s good for you. I disagree.

I believe people in general, and Creighton students in particular, would benefit from intellectual accountability. And, in Creighton’s case, who better to provide it than our learned professors? “There’s no such thing as a dumb question,” runs the academic maxim. True. But there is such a thing as a dumb opinion.

Several years ago at my high school’s Young Republicans meeting, I declared that academia’s consensus on global warming was “bad science.” When further challenged, I realized it probably would have been smart to actually read about climate change before condemning it as quackery.

My position was a posture: a desire to publicly justify my conservative ideology. Looking back, I am so glad I was called out.

We constantly hear that student activism in itself is a wonderful thing. It is indeed laudable for young people to read books, think critically, develop ideas and then try to persuade others that they’re on to something.

But it often doesn’t go like that. Many student activists, particularly those on the far ends of the political spectrum, think in clichés. They may not always approach issues with a predetermined conclusion in mind, but they certainly apply a narrow ideological framework to them.

It’s up to our professors to hold students accountable for making uninformed assertions. This can be done gently by asking: “Specifically and concretely, why do you believe that?”

Celebrating all opinions, as many professors do, is actually quite insidious. It tells students that an intellectually dishonest position is equal to one obtained by serious reading and self-examination. These professors are saying it is acceptable, even desirable, never to grow up intellectually.

None of this is to say that politically incorrect opinions should be banned. A great many perspectives, even extreme ones, can be defended with dignity and grace. I consider anyone who questions Brown v. Board is guilty of serious moral failings.

I still must respect literary giant Zora Neale Hurston’s principled criticism of the ruling: “How much satisfaction can I get from a court order for somebody to associate with me who does not wish me near them?”

For those of you waiting for me to pin specific culprits, I’m sorry to disappoint you; they don’t give me enough ink to do that.

I prefer to hate the sin rather than the sinner, especially when it’s one of which I am also guilty. Truthfully, we all are guilty of intellectual dishonesty from time to time.

But even if a bit of intellectual dishonesty is a human inevitability, like all forms of dishonesty, it should be discouraged. By calling us out, our professors will provide us with a tough love we will benefit from and appreciate in the long run.