Of course, all arguments are attempt to convince people that one's beliefs are correct. That is basically what Harvard's commitment to "veritas" is all about. All moves to stifle argument can be seen as attempts to narrow the scope of debate such that some beliefs are never questioned--a frightening tactic for house masters to employ.
Finally, then, the reason not to rehire Ignatiev comes down to his willingness to "demand immediate and unilateral changes in house policy". But house policy should not be defined as the Liems' personal wishes only.
If a tutor wants to challenge a house policy, he or she has every right to do so. Ignite merely wrote a letter to he Dunster dining hall manager stating his opposition to a University-funded kosher food-only toaster. He even informed the Liems at the time of every step he was taking. Students were drawn into the debate, and the Liems finally agreed to pay for the toaster with their own money.
But none of this was done "immediate[ly]" or "unilateral[ly]". Ignatiev presented his arguments to the community at large, and the Liems made the final decision.
Sure, Ignatiev should have shown up at more house meetings, but writing letters and sparking campus debate are surely legitimate means for changing house policy.
The Liems' insistence that Ignatiev follow their closed-door procedures is unrealistic, especially when students should be directly involved with the decision. That the tutor meetings should be seen as the only "correct" means by which Ignatiev could inform the community about his complaint and attempt to change police simply does not wash.
To be fair, the Liems view Ignatiev's action in the toaster controversy as part of a long-standing disregard for house protocol. And Ignatiev's remarks have been perceived as insensitive by a number of Jewish students in Dunster who adhere to kosher laws--namely, those who have reported silly threats from Ignatiev about putting ham in the oven.
Ignatiev's reinstatement, if it occurs, should not be seen as a vindication of his opinions. But, in the end, this issue is about free speech. And it is the name of free speech that the Liems' decision should by vigorously protested.
THE UNIVERSITY'S free speech guidelines clearly defend "the right" of "[a]ll members of the University... to press for action on matters of concern by any appropriate means." The guidelines say that the "University must affirm, assure and protect the rights of its members to.. publicize opinion by print, sign and voice".
The Liems have to realize that their "house policy" cannot contradict Harvard's policies.
Of course they can hire and refuse to hire tutors, but their reasoning cannot be out of sync with the University's guidelines.
Therefore, Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57 should step in to investigate the case and make a separate to do with his objections to Dunster House policy. Otherwise, the University's commitment to free speech will mean little.