Columbia's unwelcome invitation

Columbia University President Lee Bollinger may have allowed an unworthy man freedom of speech, but he denied his students the reason this freedom should exist.

Freedom of speech in an academic forum is not about always agreeing, it is about seeking understanding. It allows for one to engage in learning from multiple perspectives and gain insight from those perspectives, regardless of whether they are our own.

On Monday Sept. 24, a man who crossed into very dangerous territory when stepping foot on American soil, was invited to partake in a freedom he doesn’t even allow his own people, in an attempt to learn and better understand. The President of Iran, Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was invited to speak at the World Leaders Forum at Columbia University during his visit to America. Despite Columbia’s “long-standing tradition of serving as a major forum for robust debate,” according to Bollinger, Ahmadinejad’s invitation did not imply a welcome one. In fact, Bollinger made it clear that Ahmadinejad should not even be considered a part of the World Leaders Forum, but rather in his own World Dictator’s category.

The extensive introduction of Ahmadinejad consisted of a chain of criticizing statements referring to not only Ahmadinejad’s atrocious actions in governing his people, but his overall “fanatical mindset.” His invitation to free speech was therefore not one without strong preconceived notions of the absurdity for anything he was to say.

What I don’t understand is why then was Ahmadinejad invited in the first place? Despite his record of inhumane actions toward his people and appalling political doctrine, as clearly pointed out by Bollinger, wasn’t he invited so that we may hear from him, his side of the story? I wanted to hear the ideas that provide the root for these actions I cannot understand. But instead a preconceived attitude toward the words that would follow caused my ears to be tainted rather than open to hear.

While Bollinger himself was partaking in free speech, his insults completely distracted from the ideas, in an environment where open-minded learning should have been the goal.

To his defense, Bollinger has been criticized for honoring academically, “ideas of those whom should not be honored,” and he was clearly attempting to appease his critics in this introduction.

“It is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open our public forum to their voices; to hold otherwise would make vigorous debate impossible,” Bollinger said.

Yet you should be able to respect without honor, if honor is truly not due. There was no respect for Ahmadinejad, and he, respectfully, pointed this out.

He later proceeded to address his criticism of America as a bully trying to “manage the world.”

He received no respect from his bullying American host, as the world receives no respect from a bullying America.

Thank you Bollinger for proving President Ahmadinejad correct.