Passing through Denver, I picked up on an interview with a 15-year-old public school student who wanted a video on evolution banned from his school. His concern was to keep students like him from "having to question what they believe."

I was reminded of this while reading about the resolution of the lawsuit filed against the University of Utah by Christina Axson-Flynn, the former acting student who alleged anti-Mormon bias and abridgment of her freedoms of speech and religion when she refused to read a script in class containing profanities.

In the settlement the university agreed to create a procedure through which students can opt out of class requirements based on religious objections. It's not an unreasonable position - in theory. I know Jews who would refuse to play the role of a Nazi, and I wouldn't blame them.

The disturbing part of this story is the echo I heard of that boy in Denver. Axson-Flynn was paraphrased in a Deseret Morning News account last week as saying that the agreement would "allow students to pursue their education without compromising their beliefs."

If that is the result - to provide excuses for students to avoid confronting intellectual challenges - then the issue strikes at the heart of public university education.

The case has caused a tremor smack-dab on the principle fault line on the cultural divide. The root of conservative distrust of public schools is in their inherently secular nature. Public education makes no attempt, nor should it, to protect those of religious faith from objectionable speech or alternate points of view. The spirit of open inquiry depends on it.

That's why Axson-Flynn's assertion that she is the defender of free speech here, when the basis of her claim is her desire to censor, turns the First Amendment inside out. The Founders bundled free speech and religious freedom in the same amendment because they understood that the road to the latter went through the former.

The free speech at issue here is that of authors, who have a right to expect their writing for the stage won't be bowdlerized to suit individual or community mores. For a student of acting, that should be an article of faith; challenging texts are essential to an actor's development.

This case illustrates how academic freedom will be undermined across the board as professors look over their shoulders, tailoring classes to avoid objectionable material.

Meanwhile, the university has opened itself to spurious claims. The administration says that approval of waivers will not be automatic, but who are they kidding? Denials will only come at the risk of more lawsuits.

The result will be that the highly ranked program that Axson-Flynn chose over Brigham Young University's drama program will be diminished. That's what happens when you compromise academic freedom to accommodate parochial interests.

Finally, the timing of the deal suggests a darker purpose: that it was cut to make it easier for new university President Michael Young, who starts Aug. 1, to placate hostile state legislators.

John Morris, the university's general counsel, denies the settlement is a "deck-clearing" move, but his contention strains credulity.

During the state Board of Regents' hiring process, two legislators with their hands on the university's purse strings made clear their feelings about the role of the eventual new president.

"It's not the job of a university to challenge the local culture," said Ogden Republican Sen. David Gladwell. Read: Allow guns on campus and settle the Axson-Flynn case.

"This is the University of Utah, not Berkeley," said Aurora Republican Rep. Bradley Johnson. "We put a lot of resources in our schools; we don't want them teaching something we don't believe in." Ditto.

In the same May 13 Tribune article in which these remarks appeared, two unnamed university administrators were quoted as saying that the school would like to settle controversial issues before Young started so that he would have a wallet-full of political capital at the Capitol. In addition, Axson-Flynn attorney Jim McConkie said that he had been approached by university attorneys two weeks earlier - around April 30, the day Young was hired - about a settlement offer.

As outgoing chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, President Young is probably sympathetic to Axson-Flynn's claims. Let's hope he gives equal shrift to uncensored speech and academic freedom, which are too important to be budget hostages or pawns in a game of intellectual keep-away.

---

John Yewell, a former newspaper editor and political columnist, writes and lives in Salt Lake City.