The recent furor over University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill's visit to the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater campus to deliver an address on the subject of American Indian affairs is justified in some measure.

It is after all, the right of U.S. citizens to peacefully protest things that they find offensive, and Churchill's remark comparing the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to Adolph Eichmann, the "desk murderer" of the Nazi holocaust responsible for the logistics of the "Final Solution," is certainly offensive.

However, Churchill should be allowed to speak, since the basis of his address does not appear to be directed at reiterating or in any way concern his earlier remarks on the subject.

As Churchill and Whitewater chancellor Jim Miller have pointed out, the lecture has been under contract for six months, and were Whitewater to cancel, the money would still have to be paid to Churchill for his visit. Additionally, Miller has added special stipulations to Churchill's visit to ensure that no student will be forced to go, even to meet class requirements.

What is more, Churchill was not invited to Whitewater to speak specifically on the subject of 9/11, but rather on the subject of "Racism against Native Americans."

A rough equivalent to this would be asking Jerry Fallwell to speak at Marquette not on 9/11 and his remarks on the subject, but rather on the popular perception of the Baptist religion.

While neither Fallwell nor Churchill are experts on terrorism and socioeconomic motivations thereof, they are both experts in their respective fields, and an unimpeded academic community would ideally not overlook this.

In developing and publicizing these constraints, Miller has done an excellent job in attempting to split the divide over the competing interests of academic freedom and the criticism of attempts to put 9/11 in admittedly questionable historical contexts.

While some observers could argue that this is political pandering over choosing a firm stand one way or another on the issue, in a society of competing interests, the name of the game is acceptable compromise, not total ideological victory.

This attempt toward balancing competing interests is an idea that Marquette should use as a model in developing constraints for the student government, particularly in the wake of the highly publicized "Adopt a Sniper" incident. To avoid the appearance of censorship of political organizations, organizations that, rightly or wrongly, enjoy a priveleged status within the First Amendment, the university should publicize constraints or qualifiers that come with the restrictions, to make the restrictions less arbitrary and to give Marquette students a voice in the process of establishing the acceptable level of public discourse.

Miller's letter to the Whitewater community is an example of the transparency that should be adopted to help deal with attempting to find a balance between the conflicting interests of moral Catholic values, academic freedom and the education of America's youth.

This article appeared in The Marquette Tribune on Feb. 22 2005.