After working at the University for more than 20 years, Bill Ayers has been denied emeritus status, something University officials cannot remember ever happening in recent history. During Thursday’s Board of Trustees meeting, Chairman Chris Kennedy denounced retired UIC professor Ayers in what was, for him, an unprecedented moment of candor. Kennedy said he could not, in good conscience, confer to Ayers the title of professor emeritus — because one of his books is partially dedicated to the man who killed Kennedy’s father, the late Robert F. Kennedy.

“There can be no place in a democracy to celebrate political assassinations or to honor those who do so,” Kennedy said as he laid out his intention to vote against the measure. He added that he hoped his move was predictable and that faculty, staff and citizens would understand his reasoning. “How could I do anything else?” he asked rhetorically.

Indeed, Ayers’ past is riddled with controversy. Yet, in spite of this, Kennedy and the board mishandled the situation. Not because we agree with Ayers’ past behavior — because we don’t — but because the University has set a different example by embracing him during his tenure here. Kennedy also had several opportunities to address the issue at previous meetings and has repeatedly remained mum on the topic; even after Kennedy spoke, there was no further discussion by the other trustees.

We understand that this board was not responsible for hiring Ayers in 1987, for approving his tenure or tacitly supporting him by having him stay and speak at Allen Hall in the wake of the 2008 elections. While we don’t fault Kennedy for his feelings, being so close to the issue in a personal way made it inappropriate for him to directly handle the issue.

Denying emeritus status for Ayers is not only inconsistent considering his track record as a faculty member for this institution, but it is unprecedented — no retiring professor at the University has been denied emeritus status in this fashion.

We also wonder why Kennedy didn’t abstain from a vote that seemed to be — like the status of professor emeritus — largely for show, as well as purely personal, rather than acting with the University’s best interests at heart. It’s one thing to allow personal experiences to inform your decision as a public official. It’s another thing when you’re overwhelmed by them, acknowledge it and still proceed.

If nothing else, Kennedy should have spoken up well before the vote and the rest of the board should have spoken up after him. There may be no place in a democracy to celebrate political assassinations, but there is a place for honesty and open debate on controversial issues. In fact, democracy demands it.

And instead of letting our board pull punches until the very last moment, we should demand they foster that kind of honesty and open debate. How could they do anything else?