Columbia University is one of the most respected universities in the United States, if not the world. It is a private university with many outstanding achievements, not the least of which is producing more Nobel Prize laureates than any other college in the United States. Yet, its standing was irreparably tarnished by the decision to permit Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at its School of International and Public Affairs as part of its World Leaders Forum.
School officials rationalized the decision as consistent with the free expression of ideas. As the home to the Pulitzer Prize, Columbia University believed that President Ahmadinejad’s ideas merited inclusion in the marketplace of ideas. Of course, this assumes that Columbia University decided that there were some boundaries (other than international notoriety) to legitimate inclusion in a meaningful discussion of ideas.
Prior to Columbia University’s invitation to speak, the Iranian President’s ideas were well documented. Some of his most notable comments include comments at the “World Without Zionism” conference on October 26, 2005 approving of Ayatollah Khomeni’s statement that Israel should be “wiped off the map.” Even a New York Times editor had to agree that President Ahmadinejad’s comments “refer to wiping Israel away.”
Undoubtedly, Columbia University must consider Israel’s right to exist as a fairly debatable topic. But, President’s Ahmadinejad’s statements go much further.
President Ahmadinejad eliminated any doubt about the meaning of his comments and his “wish” at the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust in 2006. As to Israel, his quote was “Israel is about to crash. This is God’s promise and the wish of all the world’s nations. . . .. Everyone must know that just as the USSR disappeared, this will also be the fate of the Zionist regime and humanity will be free.”
Finally, as part of his comments at the 2006 event, President Ahmadinejad referenced the Holocaust as a “myth.” After his comments ( and international criticism), he did not back down. Instead, the Iranian President insisted that he would have to have proof.
President Ahmandinejad did not disappoint when he got his opportunity to speak at Columbia. In his speech, he again raised the Holocaust and called for research into the accuracy of reports about it.
The question is, does Columbia University believe that whether the Holocaust is a “myth” is a genuinely debatable topic? If so, do they plan to conduct a forum, similar to the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust conducted in Tehran? If indeed these are genuine topics suitable for academics, why would Columbia University not host such a forum and also invite the remainder of the speakers from the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust?
Columbia University will not host such a forum, nor should it. For the same reasons, it should not have invited Iranian President Ahmandinejad to its campus. Recognizing the platform and corresponding credibility associated with speaking at a prestigious university like Columbia, the University President attempted to mitigate the harm by preemptively criticizing President Ahmandinejad in his introduction of the Iranian President. Unfortunately, the petty name calling did little more than highlight the absurdity of permitting President Ahmandinejad to even speak. Worse yet, the content of the introduction was inconsistent with the high standards of a university like Columbia.
The answer is actually much simpler than contemplated by the Columbia University decisionmakers. If President Ahmandinjad wants to give speeches on street corners upon obtaining legal entry into this country, the United States and its governments will not censor his comments unless they present a clear and present danger to others. This does not mean that anyone should give him a megaphone, microphone, or a “forum” on stage at a prestigious University campus to espouse his views. No one argued that Columbia should silence President Ahmandinjad; giving him a microphone, stage, audience, security for protection from his outrageous comments, and much more is a completely different issue. This may not make sense to the intellectuals on college campuses; it is something average Americans figured out right away.