If you picked up one of the
New York papers this week you
more than likely saw the face of
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad staring
back at you. Ahmadinejad, the
president of Iran, made some
big news when he came to the
Big Apple to appear at the U.N.
General Assembly and to give a
speech at Columbia University.
The Ivy League institution
received criticism for allowing
the supporter of Iraqi insurgents
a platform to voice his convoluted
beliefs.
Ahmadinejad has made a number
of enemies while staying in
New York. He requested to visit
Ground Zero and explain why
the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001
occurred. He was, of course,
denied any such visitation.
His visit brings up some interesting
questions about the
American concept of free
speech and who can claim its
protection.
Columbia has long been
thought of by academics as one
of the nation’s leading institutions
for journalism and, therefore,
a defender of the First
Amendment.
In addition, Columbia is
known as one of the most prestigious
colleges in the country.
Why then would they see fit to
play host to what many call the
most dangerous man in the
Middle East?
Columbia President Lee
Bollinger asserted that the
speech was to serve academic
and educational interests. But
that begs the question: could
what Ahmadinejad had to say be
considered academic? If so, then
it makes me wonder: when did
the ramblings of an ignorant dictator
become educational?
Bollinger defended his decision
to allow Ahmadinejad to
speak by claiming that his talk
would spark debate within academic
circles and that to deny
him the right to talk would be to
deny him freedom of speech. He
is correct about both. But does
that mean that he was right in
allowing Ahmadinejad to appear
at his college? No.
Sure you could say that by listening
to Iran’s president,
Americans can gain insight into
the mindset of Islamic fundamentalists;
or even that it is a
great opportunity that certainly
no other college could offer
their students.
But how many other colleges
would want to play host to an
event such as this?
In Bollinger’s introduction of
Ahmadinejad he was pointedly
critical of the head of state,
referring to him as a “petty
and cruel dictator,”
and calling his views on
the Holocaust “astonishingly
uneducated.”
Indeed the
speech that followed
proved Ahmadinejad to
be just as petty and ignorant
as any might have thought.
He defended his views
by saying, “More research needs
to be done on the Holocaust.”
Normally, reading a comment
like that wouldn’t do much to
faze me. I could shrug it off with
the excuse that “he’s just a poor,
ignorant person from the Middle
East – he doesn’t know any better.”
The problem is that he does
know better.
This is a man that is selling
arms to insurgents in Iraq, helping
to fuel the fire surrounding
U.S. troops fighting over there.
This is the same man that many
suspect of nuclear arms proliferation,
human rights violations
and attempting to bring about
the destruction of Israel.
He defended his regime during
his speech and made several
allusions to his right to speak
before the gathered crowd.
“We must allow people to
speak their mind, to allow
everyone to talk, so that the
truth is revealed by all,”
Ahmadinejad said.
The reality of the situation is
that we are not required to do
anything for a cruel dictator
helping to fight against our own
men and women a continent
away. We did not have to allow
him to speak his mind and, likewise,
we do not have to take
what he says seriously. Of all the
negative feedback Columbia has
received since the speech took
place, perhaps the best was from
Israel’s President Shimon Peres.
“If a university is a platform
where lies are permissible, then
it is not academic ... So all of
yesterday’s show was
wretched,” Peres said.
Yes Ahmadinejad has the right
to speak in America; but, that
doesn’t mean he deserves it.
No comments:
Post a Comment