Conflict Kitchen, a restaurant that exclusively serves the food of countries with which the United States is in conflict, is experiencing some turmoil of its own. 

On Monday, the popular Schenley Plaza restaurant changed its menu from Venezuelan to Palestinian cuisine. Regardless of taste for Middle Eastern food, the cuisine isn’t the problem. 

Before offering its new menu, the restaurant hosted a discussion in Schenley Park last week regarding Palestine. These talks aren’t new — the Conflict Kitchen often brings in speakers to talk about relevant topics. At this particular talk, Pitt’s Honors College sent 15 students and paid for their meals.

Last week, The Jewish Chronicle published an article titled “University Honors College co-sponsors one-sided talk on Middle East.” Dr. Nael Aldweib, a Palestinian-born Pittsburgh internist, and Dr. Ken Boas, a Pitt professor and chair of the board of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions-USA, spoke at the event. 

Based on speakers, the talk wasn’t representative of both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but is this really worth complaining about? Conflict Kitchen is a private business. It has the right to serve any food and welcome any speaker to discuss ideas in a safe and civil manner.

There is no question that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is complex. 

But fair political discourse should exist around the Pittsburgh community and world. Our society allows us to select the food we eat and the speakers to whom we listen. If people don’t like certain ideas or beliefs, they neither have to listen to nor agree with them. Moreover, people can meet with speakers whom they wish to hear. 

Regardless of political stance, people should respect the peaceful political stances of other individuals and businesses. The public, including students and administrators, should seek more tolerance and less hypersensitivity when discussing cultural and political topics.

The reality, however, is that those who speak out carry a lot of weight. In response to negative coverage, Pitt’s Honors College has decided to no longer sponsor these events. 

But despite the animosity that ensued, there’s value in students’ exposure to ideas — no matter how controversial they might seem.

It would have been refreshing for the Honors College to resist and defend its right to send students to intellectually stimulating discussions, no matter which side they might represent. 

If, last week, the students heard pro-Palestine views, then the University could sponsor student attendance of pro-Israel events, too. 

If a University’s responsibility is to educate its students, then it should not placate critics but rather hold firm in defending its educational choices. If another conflict arises, hopefully the University will defend its students’ civic rights and its own.