Rudenstine correctly argues that Powell has amassed impressive accomplishments and is a "thoughtful and eloquent speaker."

Powell's fame for his conduct during the Persian Gulf War might have made him an appropriate Commencement speaker in 1991. Today, though, he is defined as much by his support for discrimination as he is by his past accomplishments.

On Commencement Day, when Powell talks about his experiences as the nation's first Black chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, his inspiring words will sound hollow to anyone who believes that gays and lesbians deserve the same opportunities that Powell has had.

I do not mean to imply that, as an African American, Powell has a special obligation to support equal rights for homosexuals. The moral obligation to oppose bigotry and discrimination does not come from his race, but from the fact that he is an American.

Nor do I mean to suggest that by shirking that obligation, Powell forfeits his right to speak and be heard. This is not a free speech issue. Powell's right to speak at Harvard is undeniable. But that does not mean the University is obligated to invite him.

By selecting Powell as Commencement speaker, the University necessarily rejected other candidates. No one would argue that Harvard is violating those candidates' right to free speech. Nor would it have been an act of censorship if the University had decided not to invite Powell.

Surely, there are other people Harvard could have invited, eloquent speakers who--like Powell--have played important roles in world affairs. The selection of Powell is an act of moral cowardice that mocks Harvard's policy of non-discrimination.