The broader and more important question is .... how have MANY American youths graduated High School without a clear understanding of the historical failures and genocidal tendency of centralized government power throughout the 20th century?

And, what can be done to change our educational system and international mainstream media that frequently legitimizes, honors and minimizes the evil activities of regimes that murder and imprison their own citizens? (and also fails to connect the dots between centralized power and the potential dangers to society)

Regardless of what the man did or didn't do in the past, and regardless of one's attitude about what he does or doesn't presently stand for, he's obviously of some immediate importance - if not, his visit wouldn't be this controversial. Universities should be in the business of inviting such people to speak on campus; that's what a liberal (in an educational not political sense) education is all about.

The minute he's through speaking, the world will (maybe unfortunately) remain largely the same. College students are not empty vessels to be filled with the ideology of the moment. They do (although they often hide it cleverly) think for themselves, and are not likely to be converted to anarchists (or anything else) based on any one speech. Besides, he's not coming to talk on his past political views or activities. No mater what he talks on, it won't make that much difference. Denying him the opportunity to speak, on the other hand, is a very significant act indeed. One that would have much more lasting and far-reaching repercussions than anything Ayers - or any other speaker - might say.

Freedom of speech matters - no matter what is being said, or the context within which the speech is given. We stifle free speech at our peril. If we begin the process of denying this freedom based on the prejudices of the moment, we won't have to worry about extremists bringing down our system of government, we will have begun the job for them.

Very true, and well put. Ayers is nothing but a side show, I wonder if any of our local politicos will make a fuss about the national "Fairness Doctrine" limitation of the 1st amendment currently coming down the pike?

The so-called "Fairness Doctrine" isn't actually coming up again. In fact, the only legislation coming up for a vote in Congress related to the "Fairness Doctrine" is one to prevent the FCC from enacting that type of restriction. Sadly, the sensationalist media leaps on any mention of the Doctrine. Frankly neither the right nor the left is really interested in bringing it back. Let's face it, you can't make Fox News truly "Fair and Balanced" without screwing up MSNBC from the other side. This is one point that both conservatives and liberals can get behind. (Of course, those of us in the middle might want to mess with the heads of people at the extremes, we don't want it either. We just want facts.)

I hope you're right and do understand (and agree with) your point about the old two-party blame game and why it is important for the current system of delivering and arguing the political news to keep it operating as is.

It seems a couple of the far leftists are interested in reviving the fairness doctrine, but Obama is on record saying not interested. Thank goodness we can trust Obama's word that it's DOA.