Free Speech

I'm a little confused by the framing of the decision to extend an invitation for Mahmoud Ahmadenijad to speak at Columbia University as "free speech." Everyone, including Ahmadenijad, has a right to speak his mind in this country, but nobody has a right to a specific platform at a major university. I, after all, haven't been granted such an invitation and there's no particular reason he should have gotten one either. For all the reasons Ross cites a lot of the right's reaction to this has been overheated, but it's still fundamentally odd to decide that a maniac should participate in a debate with a university president as part of a bizarre publicity stunt whose main purpose is to exaggerate the importance of both men.

Conversely, though, things like Duncan Hunter's new plan to cut off funding to Columbia University is a real free speech issue. The university really has the right to stage an asinine publicity stunt if it wants to without the federal government stepping in.

Part of the tragedy here is that the American public really ought to know more about the Iranian government's perspective on the issues of the day. The US and Iran have outstanding conflicts over nuclear issues, Iraq, and Afghanistan but also some potential for common interests on some of these topics. And most of the Iranian officials -- Ali Larijani from the National Security Council, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani from the Assembly of Experts, foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki -- aren't prone to rants about the non-existence of the Holocaust and all the rest. They're not nice men as such, but they really are people such that it's worth hearing what they have to say about the various issues in play. Unfortunately, both Ahmadenijad and America's Iran hawks have an interest in pretending that Ahmadenijad's a key actor and his goofier ideas are the center of the dispute. Why Bollinger wants to re-enforce this I couldn't say. For attention, I guess.

UPDATE: See what Steve Clemons said about this.

UPDATE II: By contrast, the idea of forbidding Ahmadenijad from going to Ground Zero was crazy and closer to a real free speech issue. Moreover, it seems to me that the desire to visit the site was driven by a desire to underline the idea that the US and Iran face a common enemy in Iran, and the move to block him driven by a desire to obscure that point.

UPDATE III: One last point. I should be clear that it's not just that "I, after all, haven't been granted such an invitation and there's no particular reason he should have gotten one either," but that there are tons and tons of other heads of state and heads of government in New York for UN-related things at the moment and they're obviously not all speaking at Columbia so it's not as if Ahmadenijad is just getting some kind of automatic "foreign leader's in town, let's have a chat" treatment. What's more, the vast majority of the heads of government hanging around the city have much more practical influence in their regimes than does Ahmadenijad. Sarkozy really runs France, etc.

Comments

I agree Matt, why do universities even have discussions at all? After all, all that discussions achieve is making people look important. Come to think of it, why do we even have presidential debates? I know what I want in a candidate, why do I have to watch them talk to each other?
For those of you who want an actual discussion on the future of Iran, turn to Matt's post on Ganji's Letter.

Posted by Wurd | September 25, 2007 12:17 AM

You are never less impressive than when you're out trolling for approval from Andrew Sullivan and the like.

I'll just cut and paste my answer from Ross's place.

"Look, I just think you're wrong on principal. The question I have is, what is wrong with you that you can't listen to the opinions of an idiot without them somehow infecting you, or believing that they are somehow bolstered by being heard? Precisely the opposite of what you describe happens when I read his remarks: the vacuousness and intellectual bankruptcy of Ahmadinejad leaps off the screen. And I have the opportunity to read them because he was given this platform! You say Larison nails it, but what, precisely, is he saying? The same thing he and you and others keep saying, a vague notion that his remarks are somehow empowered or legitimized by being given voice. But that is specifically and explicitly rejected by Columbia and Bollinger. They've said it over and over.

What are you afraid of? Stupidity is depowered by being openly aired. Who are the mental midgets who you are afraid will be swayed by his arguments? Who do you think is out there saying "Well, Ahmadinejad never seemed that great to me... but he's speaking at Columbia University! Maybe we should drive the Jews into the sea!"

Because if it isn't that, if it's just this ambiguous "empowerment" of his ideas, when the notion of endorsement has been denied by Columbia over and over again-- I'm sorry, but that's very weak tea. I'm not impressed."

"But, look-- what do you think tolerance means? This willful refusal to define the word the same way us mushy-headed liberals do is so galling. Tolerating someone's right to voice an opinion isn't the same as tolerating them performing the actions they advocate. No, in point of fact, liberals, even those pointy-headed professors, don't think we should tolerate Muslims stoning women or forcing them into burkas. What we tolerate is their right to hold and express that opinion. And, if you'd actually listen to them, instead of constantly trafficking in stereotypes and caricature, you'd know that the vast majority of those professors loudly denounce views like Ahmadinejad's. But, yes, freedom of expression is an absolute, even the most odious kind. And when endorsement of or agreement with that expression is expressly denied, what's the complaint?"

Posted by Freddie | September 25, 2007 12:18 AM

I'm a little confused by the framing of the decision to extend an invitation for Mahmoud Ahmadenijad to speak at Columbia University as "free speech." Everyone, including Ahmadenijad, has a right to speak his mind in this country, but nobody has a right to a specific platform at a major university.

That's true, but in the context of a university, it is considered normal for major heads of state to visit and speak, even if accompanied by protests (eg, Jiang Zemin's visit to Harvard in '97). Right-wing claims notwithstanding, universities are generally considered "free speech zones" where it is expected that anyone "interesting" gets an invitation to speak to the academic community.

Conversely, though, things like Duncan Hunter's new plan to cut off funding to Columbia University is a real free speech issue.

You've gotta feel sorry for Bollinger here. He's going to be left pouting to the Republicans, "But don't you SEE? I spoke out against Ahmadinejad when he visited, right in front of him! I'm a good boy! Really!" He tried to play up his pro-American credentials for the right wingers and is still going to get smacked down for it.

Posted by Tyro | September 25, 2007 12:20 AM

I call Bullshit. You just want a podium at a University to brag about your fucking iPhone. Stuff it up your ass, Geek Squad!

Posted by Scott G. | September 25, 2007 12:26 AM

Is this some sort of Ivy League rivalry that is driving this? I am, frankly, stunned to see you get something like this so very wrong. A university arraigned for a visiting head of state (noting that he is not head of the government) to speak and to be questioned. A reactionary minority in this country sets out to quash the event because they don't agree with some of the head of state's statements. Yet, somehow, you fail to see how this is a free speech issue?

No one is denying that Ahmadinejad's views are abhorrent. That he is allowed to speak here though and that he is forced to engage dissent and engage in such a public way is what separates the U.S. (and the west) from... oh... I don't know.. let's say IRAN.

Posted by Steve Balboni | September 25, 2007 12:28 AM

Hubris isn't exactly a new thing for Bollinger. Before he left us here at the University of Michigan he initiated this bizarrely massive life sciences research center as his signature accomplishment, and we've all been scratching our heads trying to figure out whether it was a good idea or not.

But hey, at least he's a champion of affirmative action.

Posted by Zach | September 25, 2007 12:34 AM

"Why Bollinger wants to re-enforce this I couldn't say. For attention, I guess."

Specifically, attention from well-off alums, I'm guessing. But, that's just some random pleb's opinion.

Posted by Shawn | September 25, 2007 12:35 AM

I, after all, haven't been granted such an invitation and there's no particular reason he should have gotten one either

I can't always tell if Matt's delusions of grandeur are an endearing rhetorical device or actual evidence of an ever-expanding ego (which was already inflated beyond a healthy size by four years in Cambridge and his now-well-established wunderkind reputation). I think he always thinks it's the former, but yet he does it so often I do think it's a bit of the latter as well.

Dude, take a page from your friend Ezra, and learn to demonstrate a little bit of humility.

Posted by Philly | September 25, 2007 12:35 AM

I, after all, haven't been granted such an invitation and there's no particular reason he should have gotten one either.

I agree Matt, being a blogger with 0.01% of daily internet traffic is so much more important than being the president of 1% of the world's population, however despicable.

Posted by Fat Yglesias | September 25, 2007 12:41 AM

I hate to jump on the bandwagon but...

This post reeks of triangulation “Hey look at me! I’m in the sensible center!” BS. Of COURSE there is genuine educational value in hearing the president of Iran speak. The quality of a man’s ideas is not the only thing that make a person worth listening too.

Posted by DJ | September 25, 2007 12:50 AM

The bottom line is that we don't get to choose Iran's leaders. If Americans deserve to know Irans perspective, they need to hear it from the man who actually formally speaks for them in many ways.

That's why He gets to speak at Columbia and you don't. Though unlike some here I kind of understood that line to be a self-mocking joke. Do you all REALLY think he's that arrogant? A bit clueless sometimes, perhaps. But he Matt Yglesias has never seemed like a total jack ass to me.

Posted by Soullite | September 25, 2007 12:53 AM

Though unlike some here I kind of understood that line to be a self-mocking joke.

Thank God for that -- the humorlessness of some of the commenters here gets insufferable at times.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | September 25, 2007 12:56 AM

I'm trying to figure out how cutting off federal funding to a university could be a 1st amendment issue. They aren't being blocked from speaking out; they are being punished for an instance of speech and some universities will continue to be funded by the feds but those aren't the same things.

I note also that the Ever-So Resonable MattY would probably support this much less-noticed decision by a Columbia student-led group.

Posted by TLB | September 25, 2007 1:14 AM

there are tons and tons of other heads of state and heads of government in New York for UN-related things at the moment and they're obviously not all speaking at Columbia so it's not as if Ahmadenijad is just getting some kind of automatic "foreign leader's in town, let's have a chat" treatment

This is true. However, given current relations between Iran and the U.S., the recent history between our two countries (since the Islamic revolution) and our continued military presence on Iran's borders for the forseeable future there is a certain relevance to Ahmadenijad that other leaders lack.

What's more, the vast majority of the heads of government hanging around the city have much more practical influence in their regimes than does Ahmadenijad. Sarkozy really runs France, etc.

Also true but it's not as if Columbia has any say over whom Iran chooses to be it's head of state. Ahmadenijad is the president of Iran and based on the organization of Iran's government we have this strange dichotomy whereby he exerts little real influence but is the nominal public figure head. It's bizarre but it's the way Iran's government works. It's not as if Columbia sought out some marginal bit player who holds crazy views and invited him here.

Posted by Steve Balboni | September 25, 2007 1:29 AM

I have to join the chorus and agree that you are totally off base here, Matt.

I fail to see what is "odd" about the opportunity to have Ahmadinejad speak - beyond a publicity stunt. I mean really, how does Columbia come out the loser in this? (and I would echo many of the things Freddie said above). Of the more outrageous things he might be expected to say, was there any realistic chance those statements might influence a single soul in that audience? Conversely, I do expect that he may have influenced some people with his less outrageous comments - things we don't get to hear from an Iranian perspective in North America.

And at the same time, he was challenged and exposed to criticism and dissent. I think it is actually possible some of that may have had an impact on him (I'm thinking specifically about his howler about Iran not having any gay people). People like Ahmadinejad (and like Bush) who live in insulated worlds surrounded by sycophants can learn by getting out in the world. I would venture a guess that the kind of ridicule he endured for his absurd answer might actually cause him some level of self-examination.

Posted by McKingford | September 25, 2007 1:44 AM

I don't know whether I agree with you or not but I just wanted to say that when you said Columbia hadn't invited you to speak, I was fully aware that you weren't actually insinuating that you thought you were important enough to have this honor bestowed upon you. Also, the general bitter and envious nature of your commenters is kind of creepy.

Posted by DRR | September 25, 2007 2:04 AM

To be honest, I'll tell you one place I think Columbia really comes out the loser in this. Having the president of the university go out in front of an audience and be deliberately insulting to an invited guest. It was, frankly, crass. He represented Columbia, and as such was the host. If Ahmadinejad shouldn't have been there, then he shouldn't have been invited. If he was invited, then at least by the formal representative of the university, he was due at least the decorum of an introduction that wasn't offensive.

The audience, during the question and answer, didn't represent the university, and take a speaker to task to their heart's content. But the representative of the host has an obligation to treat a speaker with some marginal dignity. And by failing to do so, he degraded Columbia, and by extension America as a host country.

Posted by Imaginary | September 25, 2007 2:16 AM

Matt - Do you really think that anyone is interested in what you think or what you have to say? Do you think we come by here to read your bon mots? No, we hang around waiting for you to finish so that we can "speak". That's why you aren't up on the stage at Columbia.

From what I have seen of his comments, Mahmoud Ahmadenijad does begrudgingly accept that The Holocaust occurred but I suspect his attitude is so what? All it showed is that these wonderful "western Christian values" which Europeans are constantly trying to force on us are a pile of crap.

“I am not saying that it didn’t happen at all. I asked that, granted this happened, what did it have to do with the Palestinian people? Why is it that the Palestinian people are paying the price for an event that they had nothing to do with it?”

Did any Iranians play a significant part in The Final Solution? With 69 million people dying in WW2 (40-50 million of whom were civilians) why do the deaths of 6 million have a particular significance, so great in fact that a population that for all practical purposes had nothing to do with The Final Solution is dispossessed? It is not as if the number of Jews (5-6M) who were killed or who died comes anywhere close to the number of Slavs (~15M) or Chinese (~15M) who were killed or who died on ethnic grounds.

As for his "research" into The Holocaust, is it likely to be any more dodgy than Daniel J. Goldstein's for his book Hitler's Willing Executioners. The thesis of which has probably entered the "mythology" of The Holocaust because it has sold more than 500,000 copies. There has long been a mythology of The Holocaust. For instance, who still believes that the Germans rendered the fat of their victims to manufacture soap on an industrial scale or that the crushed bones of their victims were used to build the autobahns or that all concentration camps had gas chambers?

Talking of mythologies, what percentage of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein either had nuclear weapons or that he was directly responsible for 9/11? Probably over 40% including George W Bush (sometimes when his minders aren't paying attention) and Dick Cheney!

The one area where he did damage himself was on the subject of the persecution of homosexuals although I suspect many on the right would agree with that policy. It was a shame that no-one asked him how he could square executing people with his apparent belief that it is wrong to kill people. Ah but I forgot, Americans do that all the time.

Posted by blowback | September 25, 2007 2:21 AM

underline the idea that the US and Iran face a common enemy in Iran,

Posted by feh | September 25, 2007 2:24 AM

Sarkozy wouldn't be welcome to speak at Columbia if he wanted to? Come on.

The question of Iran is one of the major foreign policy issues facing us right now, and there's at least some democracy involved in answering it. Permitting this speech can only serve to aid the democratic process.

I'd point to this post where conservative law professor Eugene Volokh agrees with a Columbia dean's statement that it would have been fine to invite Hitler under the same circumstances.

Posted by Steve | September 25, 2007 2:38 AM

Maybe it's just me, but from all the headlines, was anybody else left wondering just why the president of the nation of Columbia would invite the Iranian president to speak? And why was that president's name Bollinger and not something a bit more Hispanic?

Maybe because I'm outside the country and don't think Lebanon is just a town in Indiana (which it is, but still..)

Posted by Jeremy | September 25, 2007 3:25 AM

His response on the nuclear issue was interesting and rational. It's a perspective that you will rarely here in our media and I was glad a lot of people got to listen to it.

Posted by Jake | September 25, 2007 4:12 AM

Not only does Matt get the whole point wrong, but he's also wrong about Ahmadinejad's attitude about the Holocaust. He doesn't deny it happened, he just denies that the Palestinians should be suffering for it. He may be clueless about how he conveys this notion, with the "Holocaust Conference" nonsense, for examplke, but basically he is correct.

When he says the Europeans or the US should have taken in the Jews after WWII instead of sending them all to Palestine, he is fundamentally correct. Of course, he ignores the reasons why this didn't happen - but he is still correct.

The reasons why it didn't happen were illegitimate - therefore he is correct to ignore them. They illustrate the hypocrisy of the Western Christian nations who follow a religion that hijacked a Jewish prophet, then promulgated a religion one hundred and eighty degrees opposite to his preachings, and then persecuted his own people in his name for the next two thousand years.

It would be laughable if it weren't so tragic.

Even more so is the fact that now a group of Jews are using the whole thing as justification for acts that probably would have been condemned by their own prophet (were he also not a fanatical nationalist, as we now know he was.) Even more laughable is how they suck up to the equivalent of "Rome" today - the US and the Christian Zionists - in an attempt to get the "Romans" to do their dirty work for them. Even more laughable is that if they thought a bit further ahead, they'd see that they're eventually going to get cut out of the picture by the very people they're sucking up to - just as Rome's Bishop (before he took to calling himself "Pope") told the descendants of Jesus to kick rocks when they asked for a cut of the proceeds.

Humans. Brain dead all the way.

Ahmadinejad is correct that this is not the fault of Islam, which takes a more correct reading of this events in history.

Ahmadinejad strikes me as a fairly low level civil servant elevated above his position in life - much like George Bush. So his conversations with reporters tend to be platitudes - much like George Bush.

Since he has so little power in Iran, there certainly can't be any particular threat to having him speak in the US, or even lay a wreath on the 9/11 site. It's just a propaganda effort to make him out to be a "Hitler" - when in reality he's more like a Himmler - a low-level functionary given more power than he can handle, little as it is.

So it would appear that Columbia did run this whole thing as a stunt. Because otherwise it would be obviously crass to have the President of the University attack the guest before the guest even speaks. Even Ahmadinejad realized that was crass - and said so.

His one really stupid remark was the one about there being no homosexuals in Iran. Of course, one could take that in the same sense that Robert Vaughn used in "The Magnificent Seven" when he declared one of the benefits of the gun fighter life style to be "no enemies". Queried on that point - "No enemies?" - he replied, "Alive..." This is the sort of rhetorical stunt Ahmadinejad pulls in his interviews. He evades as much as answers any questions. In that, he sounds a lot like Jesse Jackson who is known for that sort of thing - like many other politicians - and bloggers and pundits.

Ahmadinejad is just another tin pot politician from a Third World country. It would appear Columbia decided to puff him up for its own political reasons. I'm sure if we hunt around, we'll find a neocon or Zionist donor to the university as being behind it all.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 25, 2007 4:15 AM

I'm generally of the opinion that the event was fine and worthy and Ahmadinejad was duly humiliated.

But it wasn't that big a deal. I can't understand all the agonizing in the political blogosphere that treats this as some kind of world-historical event. It was a political speech given at a time when nothing, really, was at stake for the politician.

What's next?

Posted by southpaw | September 25, 2007 5:28 AM

Ahmadinejad strikes me as a fairly low level civil servant elevated above his position in life - much like George Bush.

How could you possibly think that George W. Bush could get the trains to run on time? His daddy would send in a competent bureaucrat to do the job for him. Oh fuck, he did!

Posted by blowback | September 25, 2007 6:04 AM

BTW, Mahmoud Ahmadenijad has probably just done more good for gay rights with a single comment than anyone in history of the US!

Posted by blowback | September 25, 2007 6:12 AM

Matt,

The central complaint I see you making here is that Ahmadinejad has been elevated in stature above his actual power by various unsavory people for nefarious means and Columbia is exacerbating the issue. I disagree with the notion that underlies yoru argument that it is somehow Columbia's responsibility to only bring in speakers commensurate with the legal authority they wield. I would contend that Ahmadinejad is more important than Sarkozy in spite of wielding less authority in a less powerful country. If there is to be a flashpoint in a new war in the middle east, it is not going to be to far from Ahmadinejad. Relatively speaking, nothing interesting is likely to happen in France.

You may not like it, but it is the case, and it is not Columbia's job to change that.

Posted by Shochu John | September 25, 2007 6:22 AM

The words of this man have become tender for a war many in our country are raring to ignite. Don't you think that makes this head of state more important than say Uganda's.

And if his words our carrying so much weight, wouldn't you like to know what his words exactly are? Why are you prepared to rely on the MSM for our limited perspective. They mistranslated Saddam's final words for the State Propaganda, is it beneath them to slightly distort and then amplify the words of that guy with the really long name who is president of Iran?

But that's even beside the point. Is not the value of engaging our purpoted enemy, especially when we have unsheathed our sabers, not obvious. It's not like they hired him to teach an English comp class or something.

Geez, Matt, I bet Bill O'Reilly's already printed your post and filed into his masterbation Rolodex.

Posted by john stehen lewis | September 25, 2007 7:17 AM

The words of this man have become tender for a war many in our country are raring to ignite. Don't you think that makes this head of state more important than say Uganda's.

And if his words our carrying so much weight, wouldn't you like to know what his words exactly are? Why are you prepared to rely on the MSM for our limited perspective. They mistranslated Saddam's final words for the State Propaganda, is it beneath them to slightly distort and then amplify the words of that guy with the really long name who is president of Iran?

But that's even beside the point. Is not the value of engaging our purpoted enemy, especially when we have unsheathed our sabers, not obvious. It's not like they hired him to teach an English comp class or something.

Geez, Matt, I bet Bill O'Reilly's already printed your post and filed into his masterbation Rolodex.

Posted by john stehen lewis | September 25, 2007 7:18 AM

"the US and Iran face a common enemy in Iran"

Matt, I try not to complain about your typos, but this one is painful.

Posted by DavidS | September 25, 2007 7:33 AM

Stupidity is depowered by being openly aired. Who are the mental midgets who you are afraid will be swayed by his arguments?

We **reelected** Bush. Is it because we didn't have him speak often enough at such university events?

Posted by Arun | September 25, 2007 7:54 AM

Matt, it seems one of your main objections to the invite was its extension to an asinine maniac. Had he not been an asinine maniac I doubt you or others would be so perplexed by this event. Should some sort of committee be set up to ajudicate who all the asinine maniacs in the world are and ban them from public appearances outside their own nation? Who would sit on the committee? Would we need a pre-committee to keep asinine maniacs off the asinine maniac screening committee? Since you're such a good judge of asinine maniacs can we count on you to volunteer for this committee? We'll need to speak to a few people first to be sure you're not also an asinine maniac, of course. Let's also push for a clause, say clause 1A, to the First Amendment addressing asinine maniacs. Oh, as long as that's the bar I don't expect we'll ever hear in public again Bush, Cheney, Hadley, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rice, Powell, Feith, half the Supreme Court and nearly all members of the House and Senate with an "R" as their party affiliation after their name. It's going to be thin scratchings next spring at a few dozen college commencements.

Posted by steve duncan | September 25, 2007 8:21 AM

Ahmadenijad as head of Iran-peon with no power. Ahmadenijad as speaker at Columbia University-superman!

Matt-unable to see when he's being used at part of the usual Conservative narrative against universities.

Posted by Rob | September 25, 2007 8:27 AM

Wow! MY has really pissed off a lot of people. But why? MY just calls it as he sees it - he is not trying to score brownie points with Sullivan. MY is anything but predictable. And I totally get his point. Nothing was achieved by the so-called debate. It was a farce of epic proportions. A silly media event. What with Bollinger's opening comments.

I'm sure many people want to feel that a lot was achieved by the debate. Unfortunately nothing was. Ahmadenijad is an ideologue and a nut. Like all such people his mind is already made up. He feels he knows the entire truth - he just needs to reveal it to others. Have you seen the way he smiles all the time? That creepy asshole. He is looking for forums/avenues to make himself seem respectable and reasonable. Unfortunately he got one at Columbia. There is way to engage Iran - it should be by diplomats behind closed doors where the real issues can be ironed out. And talking to the people who can really influence Iranian policy.

The one area I defend Ahmadenijad is in the height area. Why is his height an issue? As a vertically challenged male myself, I strongly protest the height-related insults being showered on him by normal sized pundits.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | September 25, 2007 8:34 AM

"......is an ideologue and a nut. Like all such people his mind is already made up. He feels he knows the entire truth - he just needs to reveal it to others. Have you seen the way he smiles all the time? That creepy asshole. He is looking for forums/avenues to make himself seem respectable and reasonable."

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | September 25, 2007 8:34 AM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hmmm, I think you could insert Bush in this train of thought and have a sound, logical statement.

Posted by steve duncan | September 25, 2007 8:39 AM

What makes Mottaki or Rafsanjani more relevant than Ahmadinejad?

Of course the Iranian government is more complex than the Right gives credit, but the Left is equally absurd with this campaign to turn Ahmadinejad into a marginal figure. He is constitutionally the second most powerful figure in the country, and he is one of the few who is elected nationally (of course under dubious electoral conditions, but those apply across the board there).

We have not had direct diplomatic relations with Iran for years and years. They were handled through Switzerland. Two Republicans and one Democrat before Bush couldn't repair them fully, yet it's now Bush's fault that he doesn't coddle a regime that is out of control?

What would happen to Rafsanjani were we to listen to him? He is viewed as a thorn in the side of the Principlist Revolutionaries, especially by the Supreme Leader (ence the odd Leftist joy when he was chosen to head the Assembly). He would probably be marginalized in his own country were we to establish direct relations with him, or if we even hosted him here in the States.

Posted by Kevin Sullivan | September 25, 2007 8:41 AM

Look, MY (Douthat and whoever else) are suffering from the same problem of perspective. Ahmadinejad is the president of Iran. That fact sucks. But he is a relevant figure, regardless of whether or not we like it. That's the sad thing, that he has that position, not that he is afforded a speaking opportunity. Yes, it's true, he's a largely powerless figurehead. But that's what figureheads do, give interviews and speeches! It's a weird argument-- he's just a figurehead, so it's illegitimate to have him participate in debates. That's all a figurehead is for.

Posted by Freddie | September 25, 2007 8:41 AM

"Hmmm, I think you could insert Bush in this train of thought and have a sound, logical statement."

Well I was kind of implying it with "like all such people". What could be achieved by debating the decider?

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | September 25, 2007 8:44 AM

are tons and tons of other heads of state and heads of government in New York for UN-related things at the moment and they're obviously not all speaking at Columbia so it's not as if Ahmadenijad is just getting some kind of automatic "foreign leader's in town, let's have a chat" treatment

Amplifying Steve's comment above, it looks like Ahmadinejad asked for the invitation. Does anyone seriously doubt that Sarkozy would've got an invitation if he'd asked for one? There may well be an automatic "foreign leader wants to speak here, we'll let him (unless we're at war with that country)" treatment.

Note also that the presidents of Malawi, Turkmenistan, and Chile were appearing at Columbia. (The President of Turkemnistan may be Khruschev to Niyazov's Stalin, but Turkmenistan is still probably not entirely a place of sweetness and light.)

Posted by Matt Weiner | September 25, 2007 8:45 AM

Kevin, Bush has repeatedly rejected diplomatic overtures from Iran. Try to keep up.

Posted by Matt Weiner | September 25, 2007 8:49 AM

Of course, it's a free speech issue.

We shouldn't hear his point of view? Bah.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 25, 2007 8:53 AM

Not to put words in the mouth of MY, but I don't think he said it was 'illegal' to have Ahmadinejad speak at Columbia. He said it was odd and a bizarre publicity stunt. Ahmadinejad was invited (it seems) to speak because he is controversial, not because he had any substantive points to make.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | September 25, 2007 8:57 AM

Ahmadinejad was invited (it seems) to speak because he is controversial, not because he had any substantive points to make.

There are lots of controversial people in the world. There aren't a lot of leaders of countries against which our gangster power holders are trying to foment yet another war of convenience. I'm betting it's the possibility of horrifying war that prompted the invitation from Columbia.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 25, 2007 9:06 AM

Just to be fair to the scumbag Mr. Amadinejad, as difficult as that may be, he is not some uneducated boob. As a matter of fact, he is a college graduate from a reputable university with a degree in transportation engineering.

Posted by SLC | September 25, 2007 9:07 AM

"Moreover, it seems to me that the desire to visit the site was driven by a desire to underline the idea that the US and Iran face a common enemy in Iran"

Who, the perfidious Jew conspiracy?

Amadinejad laying a wreath at Ground Zero would be the equivalent of P.K. Botha laying a wreath at the MLK memorial. We're not required to participate in a farce.

Posted by wayne s | September 25, 2007 9:09 AM

There is a point on which Matt is right. Ahmadinejad's appearance at Columbia was not a free speech issue if by that one means a 1st Amendment. But Universities do have a role in encouraging debate that goes beyond the first Amendment, and it does seem that putting Ahmadinejad on stage served a purpose.

The introduction by Bollinger besides being rude, seems to have been pointless. Ahmahdinejad did a good job of making himself look foolish with the line about homosexuals. And Bollinger's attacking him on the holocaust makes the accusation that he goes ranting about the holocaust somewhat off the mark, since it is not clear that that is what he would have talked about had he not been attacked on the point.

I do think that Ahmadinejad's take on the holocaust is one that is likely representative of a lot of thought in the muslim world and so is worth understanding better than we tend to in the west. I think the view is something like, the holocause likely happened, but we in the middle east have our own history that is as important to us as the holocaust is to you. And the holocaust only enters middle eastern politics as a non-sequitor justification for the existence of Israel (which is to say as part of Israel's foundation myth). The fact that it can't be questioned in academic studies while everything else in the world is supposedly open for debate seems to confirm that the holocaust is more important as foundation myth than as historical event.

Posted by Lon | September 25, 2007 9:10 AM

"Amadinejad laying a wreath at Ground Zero would be the equivalent of P.K. Botha laying a wreath at the MLK memorial. We're not required to participate in a farce."

Wayne S., would you like to explain your reasoning, as we will charitably call it?

Posted by Guy in Jersey | September 25, 2007 9:24 AM

1) I think Ahmadinajad's invitation to speak was worthwhile.

It has been clear for sometime that the Neocons and the Israel Lobby intentionally deceive the American public for their own ends.

If we listen to Ahmadinajad expose the Neocon lies and if we listen to the Neocons expose Ahmadinajad's lies , then we might eventually arrive somewhere close to the truth.

It was hilarious listening to Bill Kristol denounce Columbia on Fox News -- Ahmadinajad may be guilty of several things but at least he has never claimed US citizenship and then abused the privileges of that citizenship to lie America into an unnecessary war that has killed 3700+ of our troops and crippled thousands more.

Bill Kristol's delusion that he somehow has any moral standing left to criticize ANYONE is something that should be challenged in the public square.

Posted by Don Williams | September 25, 2007 9:27 AM

Following Steve Duncan in comments above ... exactly how did you arrive at "maniac"?

If Iran is ruled by maniacs then maybe we should go to war with them!!!

More likely though is Iran is ruled by self-interested rational persons with upbringings wildly different from our own. Given that Iran has not invaded anyone and has done little more than act in what it considers its own interests they surely don't seem to be maniacs. Ahmadenijad in particular seems very backwards but rational.

Bottom line. Are you trying to help start a war by perpetuating the propagandistic idea that one of the leaders of Iran is a maniac?

Posted by Curt M | September 25, 2007 9:39 AM

We may not get much of the truth from Ahmadinajad --but we'll get even less from Bill Kristol and Fox News.

Americans, for example, should at least know that we overthrew the lawful government of Iran in the 1950s and imposed a dictator whose secret police Savak tortured and killed for decades. While US oil companies sucked out Iran's oil. Which might explain why Iranians aren't welcoming us on their border with flowers.

But they'll never hear that bit of history from Fox News or Bill Kristol. And probably not from our corporate news media.

If a major university looks outside our borders for information, maybe it is because it doesn't see its mission as turning out ignorant fools.

Posted by Don Williams | September 25, 2007 9:48 AM

"He said it was odd and a bizarre publicity stunt."

Say, like wearing a Punisher t-shirt to skeet range, photographing it and posting it online.

"Everyone, including Ahmadenijad, has a right to speak his mind in this country, but nobody has a right to a specific platform...

Say, like Megan...

musn't,..., mock,..., Ygelsias....

Posted by Rihlism | September 25, 2007 9:59 AM

"If a major university looks outside our borders for information, maybe it is because it doesn't see its mission as turning out ignorant fools."

Posted by Don Williams | September 25, 2007 9:48 AM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yet somehow these same major universities released thousands of ignorant fools upon the land
in the guise of Republican and Democratic politicians, policy wonks, media figures, lobbyists and military officers.

Posted by steve duncan | September 25, 2007 10:04 AM

Thank God for that -- the humorlessness of some of the commenters here gets insufferable at times.

Matt, I think the reason some misunderstood your attempt at humor is because it was couched in a convoluted, nonsensical straw-man argument:

I'm a little confused by the framing of the decision to extend an invitation for Mahmoud Ahmadenijad to speak at Columbia University as "free speech." Everyone, including Ahmadenijad, has a right to speak his mind in this country, but nobody has a right to a specific platform at a major university. I, after all, haven't been granted such an invitation and there's no particular reason he should have gotten one either.

No one is saying Ahmedinejad had the "right" to speak at Columbia. Clearly that is a privilege. The "framing" you refer to seems, to me, to be merely that Columbia has the right to invite whomever they wish to speak on their campus. And they do.

Could it be, like Mahmoud himself, you said something with all seriousness, and it was interpreted as humorous because of its absurdity?

Posted by Tractarian | September 25, 2007 10:17 AM

musn't,..., mock,..., Ygelsias....

most... original... comment ... ever...

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | September 25, 2007 10:18 AM

but it's still fundamentally odd to decide that a maniac should participate in a debate with a university president as part of a bizarre publicity stunt whose main purpose is to exaggerate the importance of both men.

That's an interesting take. I personally don't think of Ahmadinejad as particularly maniacal. I think of him as a somewhat unworldly provincial with a propensity to write long theology-infused letters and tracts that he naively imagines other world leaders actually read. Like many provincials, some of his views about history are idiosyncratic, disreputable and cranky.

He appears to see himself as one of the leaders of a global movement of resistance by the godly monotheistic masses to the corrupt, violent and worldly powers that be, imagines himself as a participant in a great interdenominational global debate, and tends to overestimate his influence on the global discussion. That is a syndrome that should be familiar to bloggers everywhere.

Unlike most political leaders, he frequently, and perhaps foolishly, offers to engage in unmediated debate at just about any time and any place. Oddly, he is not taken up on that offer more often, apparently because his various opponents are more impressed by the risks inherent in airing the various topics on which he does actually have something interesting to say than they are impressed by the opportunities presented to expose his cranky and quirky views to refutation.

Ahmadinejad is not as important a figure as Middle East hawks make him out to be. Nevertheless, he is the President of Iran, which is a rather large country whose current importance cannot have escaped the notice of even superficial, pseudo-intellectual hipsters who think they have seen everything. A curious counterpart to the silly winger view that Ahmadinejad is some sort of dictator of Iran is the equally silly alternative view that Ahmadinejad is a completely insignificant figurehead, and no more worthy of a listen than Iran's Dogcatcher General. Neither of these views appear to be based in any conception of the actual functioning of the Iranian government.

It is not at all odd that Ahmadinejad would be invited to speak at a university on a trip to the states. World leaders typically make at least one speaking stop on their trips to this country. What is a bit odd is that the talk would be at Columbia, an environment that is distinctly inhospitable. There is something almost touchingly refreshing about Ahmadinejad's willingness to subject himself to that level of hostility and ridicule. You would never see the cowards who head our own government doing the same thing. They won't even go before American audiences that are not carefully stage-managed.

Posted by Dan Kervick | September 25, 2007 10:27 AM

This guy agrees with you:

Mr. Bush, asked about Columbia’s decision to invite Mr. Ahmadinejad, told Fox News that it was “O.K. with me,” but added that he might not have extended the invitation himself.

“When you really think about it,” Mr. Bush said, “he’s the head of a state sponsor of terror, he’s — and yet an institution in our country gives him a chance to express his point of view, which really speaks to the freedoms of the country. I’m not sure I’d have offered the same invitation.”

from Helene Cooper news report in The New York Times

Posted by artappraiser | September 25, 2007 10:37 AM

My understanding is that the WTC site is closed to the public. Maybe Ahmadinejad could still lay his wreath at the fence surrounding the area (as a lot of people have done) without the special permission to don the hardhat and enter the "hallowed ground."

Posted by Jackmormon | September 25, 2007 11:02 AM

"Everyone, including Ahmadenijad, has a right to speak his mind in this country, but nobody has a right to a specific platform at a major university."

This is the most common and frustrating mistake people make about the first ammendment.

Posted by Dave | September 25, 2007 11:22 AM

We **reelected** Bush. Is it because we didn't have him speak often enough at such university events?

Maybe. Considering how many of the Bush's "public" appearances were staged photo-ops filled with loyal GOPers asking softball questions along the lines of, "Are you more like Washington or Lincoln?" it certainly wouldn't have hurt for him to take questions from a hostile audience. Well, it would have hurt his reelection chances, but the country would be better off.

Posted by Matt B | September 25, 2007 12:07 PM

".......Well, it would have hurt his reelection chances, but the country would be better off."

Posted by Matt B | September 25, 2007 12:07 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm not convinced that is true. Considering Diebold had already counted the "votes" sometime in late October I don't really think it possible Bush was going to lose, whatever he said and wherever he said it.

Posted by steve duncan | September 25, 2007 12:34 PM

"2cynicalbyhalf"

most... original... screenname ... ever...

Ever get the feeling that Matt, Ezra, and Megan switch off commenting on each others blogs to boost their traffic?

"Wow! MY has really pissed off a lot of people. But why?"...

All right, you lost me, are you being cynical to the the point that no one can tell if you're serious anymore or do you actually wonder why someone would not think Matt was being hypocritical in his frequent defense of the Atlantic crew while condemning Columbia for taking the opportunity to allow Ahmadenijad to demonstrate what "an ideologue and a nut" he actually is?

"And talking to the people who can really influence Iranian policy."

Exactly, why waste time listening to someone actually from Iran?

Posted by Rihilism | September 25, 2007 1:54 PM

Considering Diebold had already counted the "votes" sometime in late October I don't really think it possible Bush was going to lose, whatever he said and wherever he said it.

Nice. But even if Bush had been re-elected, it's always good to get the Prez out of his bubble from time to time.

Posted by Matt B | September 25, 2007 3:11 PM

I don't think Sarkozy has much trouble coming into the country. Ahmadinajad, though, appears as rarely in the States as locusts. Plus, he brought attention to the program and crowds to hear him. It seems to me that Columbia made the right call in inviting Ahmadinajad, then. And they can always invite other heads of state to speak there, too. It isn't as if Columbia U. has only one speaking invitation a year to hand out. On the whole, it was a good call. Pluses involved upsetting all the warmongering goobers, from the predictable ones in the press to the rightwing blog set. Getting them all hot and flustered is always fun.

Which is why I'm hoping the New Republic will publish another soldier's tale from Baghdad central about running over dogs in the street. It so pretty to see the veins in their neck pop!

Posted by roger | September 25, 2007 3:50 PM

PS - oops - the veins in the necks of the goobers, of course. I like doggies, and am a committed member of dogs against Romney.

Posted by roger | September 25, 2007 3:55 PM

Conversely, though, things like Duncan Hunter's new plan

Personally, I think it's thoughtful of Duncan Hunter to occasionally remind us why he should never be President.

Posted by Shelby | September 25, 2007 4:46 PM

Is this the first time MY has agreed with Bush? MY is right in that some commenters here need to get a sense of humor and lighten up.

It is correct to say that Ahmadinejad isn't a Saddam Hussein-like dictator of Iran. He is the puppet of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the mullahs.

The NYTimes had a good piece yesterday which echoes what MY is saying

"In demonizing Mr. Ahmadinejad, the West has served him well, elevating his status at home and in the region at a time when he is increasingly isolated politically because of his go-it-alone style and ineffective economic policies, according to Iranian politicians, officials and political experts."

Also, I imagine MY fears that the right will use the speach to drive the country to war with Iran.

But I think Ahmadinejad has demonized himself. His comment on the lack of gays in Iran was hilarious. (Nice to hear reports that Columbia's college students roared with laughter at certain points.)

But another point of the NYTimes piece is that Ahmadinejad was picked by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and serves at his leisure.

He is spokesman, Iran's Supreme Leader's, so why not dialogue with him and hear what he has to say? And Iran is a fairly important country at the moment.

Posted by Peter K. | September 25, 2007 5:23 PM

Columbia University doesn't have a RIGHT to federal money. It's more a case of the government stepping out than stepping in. We'd all be better off if the federal government got out of the education business altogether.

Posted by NightFire | September 25, 2007 8:04 PM

With reference to my remark that some neocon or Zionist donor was behind it all, it seems that the opposite was true.

According to Glenn Greenwald and an article in the New York Sun, there were some threats to cut off funding to Columbia due to the Ahmadinejad speech:

Columbia to be punished for hosting the new Hitler enemy
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/09/24/ahmadinejad/

"threats made by Democratic State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver to use state power to punish Columbia for inviting a speaker whom Silver dislikes. Silver -- who, among other things, has long been a leader in efforts to free convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard from prison -- did not even bother to disguise the threats he was making:

As the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, prepares to address Columbia University today amid a storm of student protest, state and city lawmakers say they are considering withholding public funds from the school to protest its decision to invite the leader to campus.

In an interview with The New York Sun, the speaker of the Assembly, Sheldon Silver, said lawmakers, outraged over Columbia's insistence on allowing the Iranian president to speak at its World Leaders Forum, would consider reducing capital aid and other financial assistance to the school."

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 25, 2007 9:58 PM

Sarkozy really runs France, but Ahmadenijad has a chance of making a big difference in how Iran is run.

Posted by Douglas Knight | September 25, 2007 10:34 PM

Conversely, though, things like Duncan Hunter's new plan to cut off funding to Columbia University is a real free speech issue. The university really has the right to stage an asinine publicity stunt if it wants to without the federal government stepping in.

Huh? The University has the right to federal funding, no matter what? How much money does the First Amendment grant it, exactly? Just Columbia, or all universities? Bob Jones?

Posted by digamma | September 26, 2007 9:25 PM

Worth reading Col. Patrick Lang's take on Ahmedinejad's performance:

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2007/09/what-ahmadinaja.html

Posted by Arun | September 29, 2007 10:43 AM