When Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Colin L. Powell was announced as Commencement speaker, the press release made much of his role as a great military leader. His support of the ban against homosexuals in the military, however, has caused many members of the Harvard community to criticize the decision as insensitive. The arguments will continue as the campus remains embroiled in this...

In Dunster House dining hall last weekend, two students sought signatures for the petition criticizing Colin Powell's Commencement invitation. One of them offered an explanation for why the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shouldn't speak here this June: Commencement isn't the place for argument and debate.

We've heard a lot of argument and debate this week--in dining halls, in the Yard, in the pages of campus publications.

At issue is not whether Powell is "qualified" to be Commencement speaker. His operational power over the huge American military, along with his ability to influence U.S. foreign policy, make him the most important speaker in several years.

What's more, Powell should be honored as a powerful role model for city kids struggling to lift themselves from poverty.

But Powell is not the perfect role model. More specifically, he wrongly opposes allowing people who are openly homosexual to serve in the military. If his political power and background make him the most important Commencement speaker in years, his backward view of gay and lesbian soldiers makes him the most unenlightened one in years.

Powell's views are wrong--but (not to ignore the obvious) he is entitled to his opinion. And his invitation to speak at Commencement should not be protested.

Powell is not the first Commencement speaker whose views members of the Harvard community find objectionable. What about when Fidel Castro spoke at Commencement in the early '60s? While the ban is offensive to many, "offensiveness" is an unacceptable criterion for a speaker's acceptance or rejection.

It raises an unavoidable, but unanswerable question: by whose standards? How many "offended" people does it take to reject a speaker? Twenty? A thousand? And how intense must the offense be felt?

Surely his flimsy and undefinable standard cannot be used practically. If we insisted that every potential speaker meet the community's unanimous approval, our pool of candidates would dwindle to nothingness.

Harvard students shouldn't dismiss Powell's opinions; ignoring one's political enemies is never the best way to defeat them. Better to protest them loudly and openly--to counter Powell's abhorrent opinion with discourse of our own.

Powell's visit given Harvard students and faculty a unique opportunity to express our views before a national audience--one of the best opportunities we will have to show our disgust with the ban to millions.

Peaceful protest belongs at Commencement. Nothing about the event makes it inherently more exalted than any other. An invitation to speak at Commencement, or an honorary degree, need not be an endorsement. In recent history, graduates haven't submitted to high standards of decorum. People decorate their mortarboards with odd accessories.

They throw things. They protest.

Commencement, in short, is no different from any other part of Harvard life--and for that reason should include argument and debate. A university exists for the purpose of sharing ideas. Far more than listening to an unsavory opinion, stifling discourse at Commencement would undermine our beliefs.