Two parallel news stories, one involving NIU, have reminded us recently just how precious our freedom of speech is – and how threatened it has become. And despite having had its share of controversy with free speech over the years, NIU got this one right.

In the first story, Ward Churchill, a professor from the University of Colorado, was scheduled to give a speech on American Indian activism at Hamilton College in upstate New York. But when it was discovered he had written an essay after 9/11 that was critical of America – and even labeled some victims of 9/11 “Little Eichmanns” – the proverbial fan was hit.

Inflammatory language aside, the point of Churchill’s argument, in his own words, is that “perhaps the only way to prevent 9/11-style attacks on the U.S. is for American citizens to compel their government to comply with the rule of law.” In other words, we should object to American policies and tactics that kill non-combatants in other countries with the same vigor we objected to non-combatants being killed here. Is that such a radical and un-American idea?

Apparently, in the current political climate, it is. Hamilton College received more than 6,000 emails, some of them threatening violence. Churchill received more than 100 death threats. Bill O’Reilly of Fox News incited his viewers to e-mail the school. Donors canceled pledges. Potential students withdrew applications.

Eventually, Hamilton succumbed to the pressure and canceled Churchill’s speech, citing “security concerns.” “In the end,” a Hamilton student told the New York Times, “free speech couldn’t happen at Hamilton.”

In the second story, part-time NIU instructor Myron Kuropas was accused of anti-Semitism in his writings. An open letter published in the Northern Star demanded his firing. Two democratic congressmen – Henry Waxman of California and Rahm Emanuel of Illinois -even suggested NIU President John Peters formally renounce the controversial writings and “re-evaluate the university’s association with Professor Kuropas.”

Thankfully, the parallels between Kuropas and Churchill end there. Members of our local and academic community have rallied behind Kuropas, here on the editorial page and elsewhere. And President Peters, to his great credit, has stood strong against the political pressure to renounce his writings or fire him.

It bears pointing out that those who protested Churchill and Kuropas are completely within their rights and practicing their own free speech (although one would hope they had at least read the texts in question). They should be allowed to do so. But when practicing your own freedom of speech begins to silence someone else, eyebrows everywhere should rise.

It is a common criticism, especially among some on the political right, that university professors seclude themselves in their “ivory towers” and don’t offer their voices on current events in the “real world.” For the people leveling this criticism – or anyone else – to try to silence these voices when they don’t like what they hear is the height of hypocrisy.

America’s university system, perhaps the most highly regarded in the world, thrives on presenting new and unique views that question and challenge people’s assumptions-views like those of Churchill and Kuropas. By definition, these views must often be unpopular, even controversial. In our democracy, questioning these views is healthy. Silencing them is not.

Columns reflect the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the Northern Star staff.