Last Tuesday's speech given by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Columbia University students and faculty generated a predictable derision from the American public, particularly regarding his views on homosexuals and the Holocaust.
But the fact that Columbia University and its president Lee Bollinger hosted the speech is no laughing matter. These remarks exposed the utterly horrifying views of an utterly horrifying regime which dishonors the Islamic community. The school's acceptance of Ahmadinejad reflected more poorly on the complete ignorance and selfishness of Columbia University than Ahmadinejad's speech did on Iran.
Specifically, Bollinger's justification to welcome the Iranian president in the name of free speech was shamelessly hypocritical and deeply insensitive to those who suffer or have suffered under his regime.
In reaction to the resistance surrounding Ahmadinejad's visit, Bollinger stressed the importance of fostering a marketplace of ideas on college campuses. Even people who did not agree with Iran's foreign policy ambitions, such as the development of nuclear weapons to target Israel, accepted this reasoning.
However noble these ideals are, do not be fooled by sanctimonious academics like Bollinger. If he were genuinely committed to promoting a marketplace of ideas, he would have supported to reinstitute ROTC on campus, which has been banned at Columbia since 1969.
There is no other example which more clearly shows the artificial manifestations of Bollinger's references to free speech. The messages ROTC espouses - such as college students' physical and emotional sacrifices to their country - would have resonated within a student body and faculty largely disconnected from direct realities of war and peace. But the fact that Bollinger stifled the opportunity to harbor this message at Columbia reveals how free speech is important as long as universities encourage speech that they like and discourage that which they don't.
Similarly, one wonders whether the family members of imprisoned homosexuals, dissidents and academics in Iran believe that Bollinger's talk of freedom was sincere. These people will never get to utilize the free speech rights of which Bollingger spoke.
Yet it is more than hypocrisy that reflects poorly on Bollinger and Columbia University. On a broader level, their actions illustrate why there are still people and institutions selfish enough to put their personal satisfactions over the common good of America and the world.
Right now, the most pressing components of the common good for humanity is eradicating the global terror threat and ending the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Bush Administration has crafted a careful position of engagement with Iran by emphasizing that the UN Security Council must assume a lead role in combating its threat.
Preparation to confront unpredictable leaders, like Ahmadinejad and his boss Ayatollah Khamenei, and to outline contingency plans if sanctions and diplomacy fail, is an extremely delicate situation. It necessitates nuanced strategies such as deciding whether to engage in direct talks with them, and if so, what to say to them.
Regarding this debate, it is neither a university's nor an academic's place to start conversation. They have neither resources nor a complete understanding of counterterrorism measures or diplomatic protocol to do so in a constructive manner.
Assuming that it is a university's responsibility to provide such a platform exhibits how some people prefer enhancing the prestige of themselves or their schools over promoting the common good.
The common good requires that Americans must not allow an enemy of humanity to propagate his views. It commands that we not dishonor our fellow brothers and sisters, whether they are homosexual, heterosexual, Jewish or Muslim, by providing an opportunity for evil to justify prosecuting certain people because of their association with these arbitrarily imposed labels. It dictates that in order to defeat evil, humanity must unite against it by refusing to legitimize the substance of its warped thinking.
Yet narcissism, not a concern for the common good, is systemic in universities, particularly Ivy League institutions hoping to enhance their prestige. Harvard University invited former Iranian president Mohammed Khatami to speak last fall, and Yale University admitted a former Taliban member in 2005. A powerful Columbia academic said that the school would invite Hitler to speak, as long as the university would be able to challenge him. President Bush even remarked that Ahmadinejad's invitation "speaks volumes about the greatness, really, of America."
Most significant is not the acceptance of these enemies, but that the respective justification for doing so by each university is frighteningly similar. After controversy escalated concerning the former Taliban member's admission, for instance, the university explained, "We hope that his courses help him understand the broader context for the conflicts around the world."
Yale's thinking exemplifies why America remains uncommitted to defeat evil. The issue is not about free speech. It is about a purpose that Americans, and all human beings, should strive to live up to which supersedes any notions of being exposed to a marketplace of ideas.
Be the first to comment on this article!