Unlike a small group of vocal opponents, we applaud BYU's invitation to Vice President Dick Cheney to speak at commencement ceremonies. Cheney is an outstanding public servant and business leader, and it is a rare privilege to have such a high officer of the nation visit our community. Recent attacks on Cheney, mostly by students, have been shamelessly partisan.

But as much as we disagree with those voices opposed to the vice president's visit, we believe that they should not be curtailed, even by a private university that has a right to do so.

The often-repeated banality that "we're private and so we have a right to regulate speech as we choose" wears thin. Legal authority doesn't equate with moral authority.

BYU supporters too often fall back on private ownership to justify the muzzling of those points of view with which the administration may disagree.

We think that's wrong. A college campus, even a private one, ought to be a place where open dialogue and demonstrations are encouraged.

You may be tempted to jump in here to say that BYU does, in fact, tolerate protest: Just look at how it granted students the right to object publicly to Cheney's visit. While we agree that these controlled political protests represent progress, they were nevertheless burdened by old discomforts with free speech. The school "granted" a permit that "allowed" people to speak out; and when the time had elapsed (virtually to the minute) protest signs were hustled away as though something horrible might result if a student should happen to wave one on his way off campus.

Why was this necessary? What message does it send to the world about BYU?

A question posed by a student to BYU's president, Cecil Samuelson, is a fair one: What is the school afraid of? (See video at http://byuprotest.notlong.com). Samuelson responded rather brusquely with what was really a non-response: "The school is not afraid of anything, Adam. Thank you for your input. Next question."

But the question was not rhetorical. Clearly, fear of some kind exists in BYU's administration or ownership -- if only the fear that unfettered speech on campus could deteriorate into unseemly and negative patterns that are sometimes witnessed at state-owned schools elsewhere in the country. BYU views itself as having a unique character, and the administration clearly wants to ensure that the school's reputation for courtesy, honor and well-behaved students is maintained.

Fair enough. But is that reputation truly reinforced by overly restrictive policies curbing dissent? Is the school's reputation -- and by extension the LDS Church's -- instead tarnished by the overtones of authoritarian control?

In our view, heavy-handedness by the "grown-ups" on campus tends to undermine, not enhance, BYU's national image. Rather than being viewed as a bastion of decent, honorable free thinkers whose world view includes God and family (in contrast to some vulgar and corrosive free thinkers who often express themselves at other universities), BYU's authoritarian lockdown translates to the world as a weird and unnecessary form of repression.

The administration's regulatory approach seems odd for any institution of higher learning. Part of education, after all, is entertaining conflicting points of view. As John Milton wrote about education, "Where there is much desire to learn, there of necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions; for opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making."

BYU students -- and college students in general -- are tomorrow's leaders in the making. There is nothing to fear in allowing them to express themselves without the prior approval of an administrative overseer, even at a privately owned institution. If students say something a little wild, so what; they're students. The grown-ups can roll their eyes and respond with something like, "Those darn kids."

While we applaud BYU's willingness to allow the Cheney demonstrations, we think the school should go further in allowing students to express their opinions unfettered. Surely there is someplace on campus that could be designated an unregulated free speech zone, while maintaining a requirement for permits elsewhere on campus. While we might predict an initial flurry of speech in such a free zone that would make a few grown-ups cringe, we think the exuberance would quickly settle down.

Open debate on BYU campus is not something to fear any more than it was at London's Hyde Park, where many LDS missionaries, including President Gordon B. Hinckley, expounded their church's views to anyone willing to listen.

If BYU truly has nothing to fear, as Samuelson said, it should grant registered students their own public forum. The high standards and positive image of the school would only be enhanced.