A Kansas University professors’ panel discussion about possible war with Iraq took on an added free-speech dimension Thursday.

Panelists discussed an e-mail sent by Kansas Public Radio to Carl Strikwerda, a history professor who participated in a similar panel discussion Wednesday.

The e-mail, they said, indicated a donor to Kansas Public Radio had complained to the station that Wednesday’s panel discussion was one-sided against the war on Iraq and threatened to pull his or her support from the station.

Strikwerda then forwarded the e-mail to his fellow panelists  Charles Epp, associate professor of public administration; Burdett Loomis, professor of political science; and Robert Rowland, professor of communication studies  and Phil Schrodt, the political science professor who helped organize the panels.

Schrodt noted that Kansas Public Radio, based at KANU, didn’t cover the Thursday panel despite attending Wednesday’s discussion.

“The voices here are being shut up by money,” Schrodt said.

J. Schafer, Kansas Public Radio’s news director, didn’t return messages left by the Journal-World Thursday night. The station’s general manager, Janet Campbell, declined to comment, saying she wasn’t familiar enough with the situation.

Strikwerda, who didn’t attend Thursday’s discussion, said he wasn’t sure why the station had forwarded the listener’s concern to him.

“I can’t do anything about what another person thinks,” he said. “Nothing we did was intended to stifle debate. Nothing we did dictated how KANU decided to cover the event. I was surprised by the e-mail, and didn’t know what the point of it was.”

Schrodt said panels like the ones Wednesday and Thursday helped combat apathy and ignorance among Americans.

“I do wish there was more debate,” he said. “I think there are a lot of issues to be considered on both sides.”

Thursday’s panelists were Schrodt; Ted Wilson, professor of history; and Paul D’Anieri, associate professor of political science. About 125 people attended the event in the Kansas Union.

Wilson said invading Iraq would go against the United States’ foreign policy generally not to interfere with other nations unless there is a clear, imminent threat.

“The Bush administration seems to be saying we have the right to take out any regime we don’t like on the basis it might harm U.S. security and interest at a future date, if and when it gets the capability to do so,” he said. “My gut reaction: Don’t do it. Unless there’s a smoking gun, unless we have a coalition in place, unless the U.N. will come to the plate. I don’t think those will happen, so don’t do it.”

D’Anieri made the case for war, but said the benefits and risks were hard to determine. He also said Bush hadn’t done a good job of convincing Americans the United States needed to attack Iraq.

“I think the dangers from toppling Saddam Hussein are less significant than the damages of leaving him would be,” he said. “It’s a very expensive, very violent insurance policy.”