While considering the best points for why controversial professor Ward Churchill should’ve been allowed to give a scheduled speech at Eastern Washington University, we couldn’t top those given by the school’s president, Stephen M. Jordan, in a written statement:

“For more than two centuries, America’s universities have been safe harbors for expression of thought and speech. This is a role that the academy of scholars holds as its deepest value.”

Yet, in the same statement Jordan said that the possibility of violence trumped that noble value, so the university had to cancel the event. Does this mean that all one has to do to stop a speech on campus is to issue a threat?

Martin Luther King Jr. and his followers marched from Selma to Montgomery, Ala. Neo-Nazis paraded down Sherman Avenue in Coeur d’Alene. There are myriad examples of free expression that were more volatile and dangerous than allowing a little-known professor to speak on a campus, especially when that speaker wasn’t going to address the offending topic.

Churchill was lifted from obscurity when a Fox News commentator read an old essay of Churchill’s on the air. In the essay, Churchill called some of the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks “little Eichmanns”. Adolf Eichmann was the organizer of the campaign to exterminate Jews in Europe. Churchill concedes that he didn’t explain his point well. He said he was referring to “technocrats” who help America carry out repressive policies around the world.

Since then, he has resigned as a department head at the University of Colorado and has been accused of inventing his Native American heritage. Reacting to the outcry over the 9/11 essay, Hamilton College in New York cancelled an appearance by Churchill, citing security concerns. And now Eastern Washington University has done the same.

During the controversy, Churchill has continued to work without security. On Tuesday night, he gave a speech at the University of Colorado, where passions about him run much higher. There was no violence.

Churchill’s speech at EWU was to be about Native American issues, which is his area of expertise. But even if he were to address the terrorist attacks, it shouldn’t matter. As Jordan said in his statement: “Even the most disturbing or sometimes vile speech is vital to our understanding of ourselves and others.”

Unfortunately, that sentiment is not embraced among some financial donors to the university. According to e-mails circulated on campus, some threatened to cut off contributions if Churchill were allowed to speak.

Jordan says that wasn’t a factor, but the security excuse is weak. The university is able to secure much larger events, such as football games. More importantly, by citing the lack of “adequate resources” to ensure safety, Jordan is placing a low price tag on a precious value. If universities cancel controversial speakers, their campuses cease to be safe harbors for free speech. They are merely harbors for safe speech.