By Brian Bohl

Almost every college or university in this country preaches the theory that a campus is a free marketplace of ideas and expressions; a conduit for academic debate and discussion. Such lofty ideals always sound good when presented in a theoretical context. Maintaining that sense of academic freedom when one side embodies the ideal of hatred is the true litmus test for any school that claims to be a haven of free speech.

Does that mean every person or group deserves to be granted a forum to address a large gathering of people to espouse any view? No. Universities are not obligated to extend invitations to hate groups like the KKK or extremist militias just because they wish to discuss a particular viewpoint. But Columbia University made the right decision in allowing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak on Monday, even if that judgment was criticized.

If Ahmadinejad was merely a professor who taught in Iran, it would be understandable if a university president refrained from offering an invitation for him to speak. His comments about the Holocaust and his stated desire to eradicate Israel from existence consistently demonstrate an extremist and ignorant mindset. Yet Columbia President Lee Bollinger actually did the citizens of the United States a favor by opening the institution’s doors to the hate-minded figure.

For better or worse, the rules are different when a person is a head of state. Unlike most radicals, Ahmadinejad is a world leader-and the head of the country directly assisting the United States’ enemies in Iraq and the rest of the world. Critics chided Bollinger for giving the Iranian president a chance to pontificate about the evils of the West. Those criticisms, especially from the Jewish community, are well-founded, but this space respectfully disagrees with them on this issue.

Iran is a major player on the world stage and will soon hold more leverage if its nuclear capabilities increase in the coming years. With crackdowns on dissidents in the country, Ahmadinejad and like-minded politicians will unfortunately be part of any delegation the Western powers must encounter in the near future. Since the leadership in the country is likely to remain entrenched, the best bet is to hear exactly what they have to say if for nothing else than to garner a better understanding of a hostile country. The fact that Ahmadinejad is a radical should inspire people to want to hear from him, not turn away.

In fact, most of the Columbia community embraced the idea of Ahmadinejad coming to the Ivy League-university, which coincided with the Iranian delegation’s trip to New York City for meetings at the United Nations. Uttam Rao, a senior biology and pre-med student, says most of thousands of protesters who filled the campus earlier in the week were not affiliated with the school.

“There was a general consensus among students and facility. I think a lot of students were excited to hear him talk. A lot of kids skipped classes to hear him talk,” Rao said. “People who weren’t students…many of them were very much against his presence. They were yelling when he denied the Holocaust.”

Iran’s already been labeled part of the Axis of Evil, and Ahmadinejad’s refusal to answer direct questions about his country’s policy on the treatment of homosexuals and women underscored the ignorance under which that country’s leadership operates.

“In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals like in your country,” he said to a crowd of just over 600 people in the Roone Arledge Auditorium.

The speech also touched on a very important lesson for the American public. Ahmadinejad may be ignorant, but it could be dangerous if the United States underestimates his intelligence. The 50-year-old head of state deftly deflected questions about Holocaust denial by suggesting that he meant further research was needed, just like for any other historical event. He also highlighted his country’s desire to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes instead of weapons. The language was slick, and like most extremist literature, seems based on facts upon first glance but later breaks down under scrutiny.

Yet all the speech did was put a face on the ugly realities facing Iran. Columbia did a good job in allowing the American public to question Ahmadinejad and make him at least somewhat accountable for his statements. Bollinger might have even been remembered as making the day a landmark in the school’s history if he resisted the temptation to appease every side.

Unlike in 2006, when an invitation was rescinded, Bollinger did not bow to pressure to cancel the event. Good for him to not waiver from his decision. When it came time to introduce Ahmadinejad, though, his remarks did nothing more but insult an invited speaker and made the university president part of the story.

Merely extending an invitation to a prominent political figure doesn’t mean one agrees with the policies of that official. Bollinger didn’t think people were smart enough to realize this, making statements like, “I doubt you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions…I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical mindset that characterizes so much of what you say or do.”

Tough talk like was an attempt to show the protesters he didn’t agree with the speaker’s point of view. This was an unnecessary step, which also brought Bollinger an additional round of criticism that was warranted.

“Regardless of who it is; if someone’s been invited and the event’s been set-up, I think a certain decorum should be maintained,” Rao said. “Comments like [those] doesn’t really have much place in such a discussion. If he had just left his opening remarks, that would have been enough.”

Brian Bohl is a senior print journalism student. You may e-mail him at [email protected]

Brian Bohl