Taking a pragmatic approach to the situation, rather than one based on feelings, is appropriate under the circumstances: Famous people uttered potentially offensive things and were severely punished for it.

Don Imus, the aforementioned host who lost his lifelong career for a phrase that took him three seconds to utter, is a prime example. A man in the public eye (well, some of the public, and for those who never heard of him before this now know his name with a hint of infamy), Imus offended not only a diverse Rutgers women's basketball team, but also an entire nation — no matter what color.

But whether you think Imus' "joke" was morally right or wrong, the simple fact that these slurs are causing controversy shows a change in American discourse that is obviously steering toward our goal of valuing human worth. This notion of entirely equal rights, no matter what group has been disenfranchised, has mostly — but not entirely — been law for decades. As societal sensitivities change, soon will the law, and that is through the give-and-take of the tennis game of freedom of speech.

People in the public eye — whether it is a politician, a famous celebrity, a Fox News reporter or the "effete eastern establishment" — have a responsibility not to promote a culture of divisiveness and disenfranchisement and are held to a higher standard accordingly. Believe it or not, there are ethical canons of craft for all who use the public communication waves.

Some may argue against this natural progression and cite having to change from traditional conversation to having the painstakingly difficult task of watching what you say. What this civil dialogue demonstrates is the fact that greater acceptance of all groups, no matter their differentiation from the norm, is evolving. No one is stopping anyone from practicing or saying what he or she wants, but when it may offend someone, a cautiousness of speech is now accepted as intelligent.

Like all freedoms, the freedom of speech is relative — not absolute. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes correctly stated in Schenck v. United States, 1919: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic." Or, as Steve Martin once parodied, "You cannot shout movie in a crowded firehouse."

It's not a matter of being politically correct or living in constant fear of lawsuits from overzealous individuals who cite their rights out of context. The change our culture is experiencing is that of realization of harmful language as the initial vocalization of the "great divide."

And although controversy swirls with those in the public eye, the adage of "change starts at home" most certainly applies. Although those in the public eye need to be more responsible, a student at MSU who doesn't refer to someone as a "fag" can contribute to the change at hand.

Such evolution of discourse is a crucial step toward equality, especially in a civil society where people value their freedoms above all else.

Whether you agree with it or not, Don Imus and George Allen are now among many others who found that a single sentence can lead to unemployment. No one will take away your right to say it, but in a culture that increasingly shuns hate, it seems "equality" is closer than you think.

Michael Stevenson is an MSU political science freshman, a member of MSU College Democrats and State News columnist. Reach him at steve391@msu.edu.