Chatting with Iran

Under the guise of free speech, was there any benefit for America or our educational system to allow Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to speak publicly at Columbia University last week?

Is there a lesson in listening to a man who openly denies the Holocaust and leads a parliament that voted on Sept. 29 to designate the U.S. Army and CIA as “terrorist organizations” for the atomic bombing of Japan, the use of depleted uranium munitions in the Middle East, and the support of Israeli military action against Pakistan?

Without the slightest bit of doubt, the answer is yes. We should keep an open line of communication with other countries, particularly those who think we’re the axis of evil and vice versa. In particular, allowing a Q&A format for Ahmadinejad’s invitation to speak at Columbia furthered the opportunity to openly discuss the blatant differences we share with Iran. And where better to do this than before a prestigious university that frequently churns out political leaders for America?

Columbia’s president, Lee Bollinger, opened the forum by calling Ahmadinejad a “petty and cruel dictator.” The Iranian president didn’t offer a retort, but said on the Friday following his appearance, “With the grace of God, the Columbia University issue revealed their aggressive and mean-spirited image… It backfired. They sacrificed the prestige of their whole system.”

Both comments prove the merit of allowing Ahmadinejad to speak. By listening to Iran’s president and allowing him to voice his beliefs, regardless of how absurd or offensive to American sensibilities, we benefit by encouraging an open dialogue over our most basic principles of human rights and history.

Any attempt to bar Ahmadinejad from speaking seems stubborn, and almost suspicious. Granted, he is known for making outlandish accusations and absurd declarations about history, but without dialogue, any hope of resolving our conflicts is lost. America’s citizens will be more informed after opportunities to hear the arguments and opinions of a leader such as Ahmadinejad, rather than second hand through our political leaders.

Freedom of expression is at the root of democracy and our educational system; denying someone the right to speak, particularly someone so important in the future of our international affairs, would be a violation of one of our basic principles. If anything, we gain clarity and information through public dialogue, but what is at risk of being lost if we are blocked by the government from hearing from the opposition?

We should be able to voice our accusations in public and hear a response to them. Not allowing a man to answer for himself regarding his offenses sounds like something you’d only find in the dictatorships we condemn. If anything, allowing Ahmadinejad to speak and calling out our differences kept the prestige of our whole system intact.