Wednesday event featuring Donald Trump's former campaign manager has stirred conflict at the University of Chicago, with some students and faculty members urging school leaders to rescind the invitation while administrators are defending it as an opportunity for valuable political discussion.

Corey Lewandowski, who oversaw much of the president's run to the White House, is scheduled to participate in a seminar presented by U. of C.'s Institute of Politics on Wednesday afternoon. The session aims to explore Lewandowski's time with the Trump campaign, the president's rise and the future of his presidency.

Four groups representing students and faculty delivered a letter Monday to Institute Director David Axelrod and fellow Robert Costa to oppose Lewandowski's appearance, citing statements Trump and his delegates made throughout the campaign and controversial policies the new administration has implemented, such as the immigration ban targeting Muslim-majority countries.

U. of C. Resists, Graduate Students United, Students Working Against Prisons and UChicago Socialists endorsed the letter. U. of C. Resists, which includes students, staff and faculty, has scheduled a protest before the event.

"Nothing about a firm commitment to free expression obliges us (to) open our doors to (much less to provide platforms for) those who incite hatred and violence against refugees, immigrants and minorities — that is, against our students, teachers, co-workers and neighbors," the letter states. "Far from being obliged to welcome Lewandowski, we are obliged not to."

The letter and planned protest come as universities across the country are grappling with whether certain types of speech should be limited on campus. U. of C. made headlines in the fall for telling incoming freshmen not to expect academic "safe spaces" or "trigger warnings" during their time in college.

Wednesday's event is to be moderated by Costa, a longtime Washington Post political reporter. The non-partisan Institute of Politics has hosted similar seminars to discuss the president's impact on politics, culture and media. The event is off-the-record and closed to media, and only students who register in advance may attend.

Axelrod, a former adviser to Barack Obama, said he understands the opposition's viewpoint but there are no plans to cancel Lewandowski's appearance. Leading Authorities, a Washington, D.C.-based communications firm that books Lewandowski's speaking schedule, did not respond to a request for comment.

"Corey is coming here not to afford him a platform from which to proselytize but because he was the campaign manager for a guy who happened to get elected president of the United States, and can shed some light on both that process and the thinking of the guy who sits in the White House," Axelrod said.

Axelrod defended the program, saying the institute hosts a wide variety of speakers across the political spectrum. He said he supports the right to protest but does not agree that certain people should be prevented from speaking at all.

"From my point of view, giving our students a chance to ask hard questions is part of the function of the institute," Axelrod said. "You can't be an institute that is there to promote democracy, and shut off discussion and debate. And we won't."

Anton Ford, an assistant philosophy professor who helped craft the letter, said the aim is not to suppress speech but to prevent certain topics and ideas from being normalized as legitimate political discourse.

The letter demands the institute "stop providing a platform to surrogates of the Trump administration"—referring also to a January event that featured Trump press secretary Sean Spicer.

"This is not about hurt feelings. This is not about people being offended. It's about real violence against people," Ford said. "Sometimes there are people or views that are dangerous in and of themselves. The very ceremony of debating that is problematic. What is troubling about the general way this is talked about is that it is as if nothing is out of bounds."

A university spokesman did not respond to a request for comment, but U. of C. has a history of defending free speech. A committee penned a report in 2015 reaffirming U. of C.'s commitment to free expression, saying it is not the school's role to protect people from offensive ideas and opinions.

U. of C. also is known for refusing to take institutional stances on social or political issues, a policy launched by the Kalven Report in 1967, which prioritizes academic debate over politics.

This was a senior advisor to a sitting president, for fuck's sake. There is undeniable academic value to his participation.

Seems like a great opportunity to get under the hood of that circus. Opposing it is stupid. When did UofC kids turn into such idiots?

That's what makes it even more disturbing that faculty members, not just "hysterical" students, are in favor of preventing him from speaking. But I suppose those students get these ideas from someplace and in many cases it's apparently their teachers.

Do they think historians should remove the philosophy of bad guys from history books?

There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.

When did UofC kids turn into such idiots?

I am not a legal expert, how many times do I have to say it?