You can try to forget it, ignore it or discredit it, but it’s as obvious as the building itself:

The controversy over Carrie Chapman Catt Hall isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.

The newest spin on this ongoing debate surrounds the memo sent to the university president’s cabinet and various other university departments by Derrick Rollins, Iowa State’s new diversity advisor.

In the memo, Rollins states his position on the Catt Hall issue: “I am writing this letter to share with you why I feel the only humane thing to do is to commit one’s self to the renaming of Catt Hall.”

Regardless of one’s stance on this never-ending issue, all must commend Rollins for standing up and voicing his opinion, something that many others on campus seem to be unwilling to do. Many faculty members, GSB senators and other prominent members of the Iowa State community have been reluctant to share their perspective on the issue.

Maybe they feel enough’s already been said. Maybe they are scared to have their voices heard. Maybe they really don’t know how they feel.

But Rollins’ memo illustrates one point everyone should seriously consider: This issue is not going to go away, not without some sort of resolution. The university administration may be able to outlast individual students, who eventually will leave ISU, but as long as more stationary members of the community, such as Rollins, continue to speak out on this issue, it will continue to be a source of controversy.

What’s the resolution to this situation? Maybe there is none. President Jischke has stated rather clearly that the name of the building will not change. Rollins and the September 29th Movement surely have other ideas.

But a campus-wide, face-to-face discussion is certainly in order. Rollins’ willingness to enter this debate is a sign that things are far from over. And if Rollins, a university presidential appointee whose opinion conflicts with the president, can speak out, can’t the rest of us as well?

Will a debate be comfortable? Of course not. But comfort should not be the first priority of a democratic society. Participation should be.