Ahmadinejad's visit to the U.N. and NYC could have been used much more productively, it seems to me. Rather than providing him a reddish carpet and a carte that's only slightly off-blanche, a quid pro quo could have been employed in which he and his speech/q&a in a class at a prestigious school here, were matched by the U.S. President speaking/q&a-ing in a class at a prestigious school in Iran. Whatever Bush's real or imagined limitations in the eyes of some, it cannot be denied that he is passionate and occasionally eloquent about liberty and freedom, and such an exchange would have been useful and interesting, not a propagandistic moment and a chance for Columbia to appear to support an academic and political repressor. Oh, the silly advisers who either didn't think enough outside the obvious boxes or, more likely, dissuaded GWB from doing this.

I'm willing to accept that there is intellectual merit in permitting utterly disagreeable people to speak in college classes where they can be queried and disagreed with, or even be persuasive to some. I doubt I would want to attend a class session led by Ahmadinejad even I were able, but I truly do understand and agree that free speech and intellectual curiosity should not stop where my concurrence and agreement stop. However, big however: I do not understand why the Columbia class does not include someone in a similar political position from the U.S. or Israel, or some other country that strongly disagrees with him. If Ahmadinejad actually means that he is going speaking in order to further the cause of ideological discourse, then he would agree to such a forum; if he did not agree, it would expose his assertion as a falsehood and would provide a valid reason for disallowing him to speak publicly. Also, he said he wanted to lay a wreath at Ground Zero which does seem odd (did he want to pay respect to those who flew the planes?), but could have been used as an opportunity to influence him - allow him to visit the perimeter of the site and also require him to tour the Holocaust Museum and voice his reactions. Although he claims the Holocaust did not occur, he would then be forced to see evidence. What would he say? Perhaps more measured statements could have been wrested from him.

I am not of the "everyone has a good side" school of thought but I do think there is value in listening to those we disagree with, even profoundly disagree with, if we can gain something in the process.

Labels: headlines, reflections