Ahmadinejad at Columbia

Columbia University President and once-Harvard presidential candidate Lee C. Bollinger did academia and the cause of academic freedom proud this week.

Bollinger was harshly criticized from all sides for hosting a forum with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the controversial president of Iran, and attacking Ahmadinejad in a fiery introduction. But by inviting a powerful and important—though abhorrent—figure and peppering his guest with pointed questions, Bollinger showed the true nature of academic debate: that all are free to speak but none are free from scrutiny.

The controversy surrounding an invitation to an Iranian president is not alien to Harvard, which last year attracted similar ire, albeit on a smaller scale, for hosting Ahmadinejad’s predecessor Mohammad Khatami. We said then—and we say now—that such invitations are not only appropriate but laudable.

The worthiness of an invitation to a guest speaker should be determined by his or her ability to add to the intellectual climate at a university, something any world leader most certainly does. Political considerations should play absolutely no role in extending an invitation.

Columbia’s invitation to Ahmadinejad and Harvard’s invitation to Khatami were in no way stamps of approval for Iran. Instead, they were acknowledgements of the importance of Iran and its leaders in shaping the world in which we find ourselves. We hope that University President Drew G. Faust, if faced with the same dilemma as Bollinger, would not hesitate to follow suit.

Bollinger’s introduction of Ahmadinejad also served to further academic discourse. Although the headlines may read that Bollinger insulted Ahmadinejad by calling him a “petty and cruel dictator,” Bollinger’s introduction was mainly focused on the importance of free speech—which is all but absent in Iran—and a series of frank, pointed questions on human rights, Holocaust denial, Israel, Iran’s links to terrorist organizations, and the country’s nuclear program.

Bollinger’s introduction did not make for a pointless discussion, as some critics claimed, nor was it mere “schoolyard name-calling,” to quote New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. Instead, by raising these important questions in such an attention-grabbing and strong manner, Bollinger forced Ahmadinejad to either respond—thus furthering discourse—or ignore Bollinger’s questions—revealing to everyone what a fool he truly is.

It is a great shame that Ahmadinejad chose the latter. He gave ludicrous and non-committal answers such as “we [Iran] are a peace-loving nation…we love all nations” and “we are friends with the Jewish people.” Some of Ahmadinejad’s answers were simply inaccurate (“Jews, Christians and Muslims…don’t have any serious problems”), while other comments confirmed Bollinger’s existing suspicions that Ahmadinejad is “either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated.”

Ahmadinejad’s response to a question about Iran’s treatment of women, for instance, was typical. Instead of addressing the point, he went off on a tangent saying that “in Iran, every family who’s given a girl is given—in every Iranian family who has a girl, they’re 10 times happier than having a son…women are more respected than men are.” Even more telling was his discourse on Iran’s treatment of gays. A clown cowering behind his podium, Ahmadinejad claimed, “In Iran we don’t have homosexuals like in your country. We don’t have that in our country. In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don’t know who’s told you that we have it.” The audience could only laugh.

Bollinger questioning, combined with Ahmadinejad’s utter lack of engagement, sent a strong message to the audience that his world view is not grounded in reality or rationality. While not discourse in the literal sense, Ahmadinejad’s speech spoke volumes.

Ahmadinejad’s invitation and Bollinger’s introduction also served to stimulate discourse by Ahmadinejad’s mere presence. On Monday, Columbia buzzed with protests and debate about Iran which spilled into the streets of New York, the national media, and university campuses nationwide. Regardless of what Ahmadinajad actually said, the discussion about his visit accomplished Bollinger’s goal of raising awareness and discourse about Iran—and then some.

For his dedication to full freedom of academic inquiry, Bollinger deserves to be applauded for his gusto and bravery.