The Daily Pennsylvanian :: Meredith Aska McBride

I'm scared of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Under his presidency, Iran has grown to be a bigger threat to the United States than Iraq ever was. He has called the Holocaust a "myth," said Israel should be "wiped off the map," and continues to develop nuclear capabilities despite United Nations Security Council sanctions. Amnesty International warns of his widespread human-rights violations, and he is vehemently anti-secular.

Most Americans agree that Ahmadinejad is a Very Bad Guy. This does not negate his right to be heard. Opponents of his invitation to speak today at a world leaders' forum at Columbia University are conflating two very different matters: a judgment of the merits of his views and his right to speak those views.

In theory, America stands for free and open debate. We grant the liberty to be wrong under the premise that the truth will win out in a competitive exchange of ideas. If prevailing American views hold up under scrutiny, they are that much more convincing. Universities are the ideal forum for such exchange.

The United States, under the Bush Administration, has certainly been trying to make the case that our democratic principles are superior to any other political philosophy. Our actions, though, have shown that we have a hard time putting these principles into practice lately, from our abuses of due process at Guantanamo to curtailment of civil liberties under the Patriot Act.

Giving Ahmadinejad an honest platform gives us one last chance to make the case for our form of government - if we're really as wonderful as we believe, we should have no trouble convincing anyone else of that fact.

It's appalling that canceling Ahmadinejad's speech was even on the table. He does not have the facts on his side with respect to, say, his Holocaust denial, and I doubt his more subjective opinions on terrorism, Israel, the role of religion in government and the like will be extremely popular with an American university audience.

The Bill of Rights, and our cherished First Amendment, are structural entitlements not dependent on the facts of any given case. These rights are why we gave a man like Timothy McVeigh due process and why even this Supreme Court, normally so responsive to the President's wishes, has rebuked the administration for its abuse of civil liberties by finding many aspects of the trial proceedings at Guantanamo unconstitutional.

And we need to realize that our viewpoint isn't as correct as we'd like to think. As the United States becomes ever cockier in its imperial quest, it is important that our views be challenged. Our actions, in many ways, have allowed crackpots like Ahmadinejad to flourish - there's a reason other countries are going to such great lengths to oppose us.

Our rhetoric has rung hollow in the last few years, from our unilateral wars to our abridgment of our own citizens' rights to the abominable civil-rights situation in Jena, Louisiana, to the slow destruction of our system of federal checks and balances. Those in power know they're deviating from the philosophical foundation of this nation, and they're trying to cover it up.

What are we scared of? Are we scared that mixed in with his nonsense, Ahmadinejad may deliver some legitimate criticisms of our actions in the Middle East? Of our hypocrisy in telling him to shut down Iran's nuclear programs when we control more warheads than any other nation? In telling him to clean up his act on human rights when we perpetrated Abu Ghraib in the name of democratizing Iraq? Can we legitimately criticize Ahmadinejad for willfully ignoring factual evidence that the Holocaust did, indeed, happen when Bush invaded Iraq over non-existent weapons of mass destruction?

Maybe we're scared of the fact that our ill-conceived war in Iraq has only strengthened Ahmadinejad's hand in the Middle East and has made Iran a real threat to our security.

I'm scared of Ahmadinejad, but I'm more scared of those who would deny him the right to speak. I'm scared that we are so shaky in our justifications for our own actions that we are afraid of any criticism, even from someone so clearly unhinged, illegitimate and wrong as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Meredith Aska McBride is a College sophomore from Wauwatosa, Wisc. Her e-mail is mcbride@dailypennsylvanian.com. Radical Chic regularly appears on Wednesdays.

Comments (27)

Just to clarify, my post was entirely sarcastic. I was simply pointing out the irony of the student's at Columbia who prevented guest speaker Jim Gilchrist from talking by shouting him down and storming the stage but now wish to peacefully "debate" Ahmadinejad.

No one denies that individuals have the right to spew hate speech, deny the Holocaust, and call for Israel to be wiped off the map�?.. in Central Park. The issue here is that Columbia University, a symbol of excellence and scholarship should not be providing a platform to these individuals. Just because someone has an opinion doesn�?t entitle them to speak at a University. Columbia should be embarrassed and ashamed.

The Bill of Rights protects an individual from the government infringing on his or her right to free speech. It does not provide an individual with a "right" to speak at a private university. Ahmadinejad leads a government that has been responsible for supporting terrorism worldwide (e.g., the July 1994 bombing in Buenos Aires; serving as a sponsor of Hezbollah in Lebanon, etc.), and called for the destruction of another member of the United Nations (Israel) in violation of that (feckless) entity's charter. If he wants a forum to express his views, there are plenty of places he can do so. Columbia University should not be one of them. It brings shame to that university to have him speak there. Jason Aschenbrand C'96, L'99

meredith, you just don't get it. this isn't an issue of freedom of speech. this isn't about our policies in the middle east or iraq so all your non sequitur points about our missteps in the mideast/iraq/gitmo/etc are completely irrelevant and trying to disguise your thinly veiled defense of academic freedom. with such non sequitur examples. no one is denying with your sophomoric constitutional analysis that ahmedinijad indeed has the right to stand on a soap box and spout off his hateful beliefs. the issue is whether columbia should give him such a forum which you fail to provide any solid justification for. iran's leader may have the right to say such beliefs but columbia has neither the right nor the obligation to provide him the legitimacy. your best attempt to defend this is where you say "In theory, America stands for free and open debate. We grant the liberty to be wrong under the premise that the truth will win out in a competitive exchange of ideas." and that universities are the best forums for such exchanges...but again, you just dont' get it. this is not a competitive exchange of ideas. this is not democrats and republicans debating one another. this is an anti-semitic, holocaust denier who has flouted un sanctions and is a widespread human rights violator...all of which you yourself point out. this is not the person wtih whom you can have intelligent discourse and why your argument is flatly wrong.

Ahmadinejad is not here to criticize the US's actions in the middle east. he is here to speak out of the other side of his mouth. while he may call the holocaust a myth and threaten to destroy israle like a dead tree in a great storm on al-jazeera, he is here to show his intellectual, westernized side and talk about how he does not say any of the horrible things people accuse him of. if we had more arabic-speaking translators in the state dept, we would already know that, though. what is apalling, though, is that lee bollinger would seek to grab attention like that and will roll over and ask easy questions of him. it would be great to have him speak, except that the average american's lack of international wherewithal will cause him to believe what ahmadinejad has to say and not understand what all the fuss is about.

Is Meredith actually stating that we cannot criticize a man for denying the Holocaust because Bush entered Iraq over non-existent weapons? The third to last paragraph of this article is disgusting, absolutely disgusting. I don't care what Bush did when or where, I have my right to criticize a person for denying the Holocaust, and my criticism is perfectly "legitimate." Although I agree that Ahmedinejad should be allowed to speak, this entire article addresses mistakes Bush has made, which are completely irrelevant to Ahmedinejad's right to speak. Anyone who denies the Holocaust still has the right to speak about openly discussed topics, but I will always have the right to criticize his denial, no matter what President Bush has done wrong in the past. Sincerely, A very disgruntled reader

I can't get over the dude who said "Usama Bin Laden." Is this like, FOX News, circa 1998?

Also note the protestors trying to silence the anti-Ahmadinejad protests...

meredith, you just don't get it. this isn't an issue of freedom of speech. this isn't about our policies in the middle east or iraq so all your non sequitur points about our missteps in the mideast/iraq/gitmo/etc are completely irrelevant and trying to disguise your thinly veiled defense of academic freedom. with such non sequitur examples. No one is denying your sophomoric constitutional analysis that Ahmedinijad indeed has the right to stand on a soap box and spout off his hateful beliefs. the issue is whether columbia should give him such a forum -- which you fail to justifu. iran's leader may have the right to diseminate hatenful beliefs but columbia has neither the right nor the obligation to provide him, and by extension his beliefs, legitimacy. your best attempt to defend this is where you say "In theory, America stands for free and open debate. We grant the liberty to be wrong under the premise that the truth will win out in a competitive exchange of ideas." and that universities are the best forums for such exchanges...but again, you just dont' get it. this is not a competitive exchange of ideas. this is not democrats and republicans debating one another. this is an anti-semitic, holocaust denier who has flouted un sanctions and is a widespread human rights violator...all of which you yourself point out. He is not a person with whom you can have intelligent discourse -- your argument is flatly wrong.

Did Columbia actually seek him out, invite him to speak, and are they paying him? And will questions be permitted following his speech? I hope he gets the full brunt of "freedom of speech" from his audience, including protests, challenges, chants, and signs. and no tasers.

Good stuff McBride. Freedoms like these are what separate us from both Israel and Iran.

Columbia University�?s inviting him to speak isn�?t really the issue here. The real question is why was he granted an entrance Visa by the State Dept. in the first place. The U.S. may (and I only say may) be obligated to grant him access to the U.N. and his embassy; however, we�?re not obligated to allow him to travel any where else in the U.S. just because he wants too. Let�?s not forget that this man was involved with the Iran Hostage crisis where 52 Americans were held for 444 days, he has publicly called for the destruction of Israel and the U.S. and his government is providing weapons support to the insurgents killing our troops in Iraq. He is an enemy of the U.S. and should never have been allowed in.

1. You're a sophomore writing for a campus newspaper. You have no access to military intelligence and therefore no authority to say that Iran poses a greater threat to the U.S. today than Iraq ever did. Keep your uninformed opinions to yourself. 2. The U.S. Constitution applies to American citizens. Not the Iranian president, not the enemy combatants found on the battlefields of Afghanistan & Iraq. 3. There is a fine line between open discourse and aiding/abetting an enemy. Columbia University crossed that line. Forget about Mr. Ahmadinejad's unpopular/absurd views on Israel & the Holocaust. This is a man whose country openly threatens the U.S. and its allies, who is known to be supporting terrorists that are killing American soldiers, and whose people suffer under an oppressive, abusive regime. Providing him with a forum amounts to treason. New York state lawmakers have threatened to withhold funding from Columbia for its traitorous actions. I fully support them in this endeavor.

Can we legitimately criticize Ahmadinejad for willingly ignoring factual evidence that the Holocaust did, indeed, happen when Bush invaded Iraq over non-existent weapons of mass destruction? I can't believe you would draw this comparison. How un-American and ignorant of you. This is the world's largest financier of terror we are talking about--he has no right having his visa extended to be here for anything more than a trip to the UN.

I am a Jew who also supports the destruction of the state of Israel and I do not see a conflict there. Of course his denial of the holocaust is moronic, but most of the people protesting Ahmadinejad are less concerned with his holocaust denial (which has been marginalized in mainstream thought) and more concerned about his rhetoric regarding Israel. Meredith walks into the wrong debate when she says "Iran has grown to be a bigger threat to the United States than Iraq ever was" as the upshot of this logic is that an attack on Iran is justified and she would support it. If America invades Iran, it will have little to do with Ahmadinejad (other than the fact that he has been unfriendly to U.S. interests) and a lot to do with the United States imperial ambitions in the region. The justifications for an attack on Iran that you can see being conjured up are curiously similar to those used for the attack and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan before that.

Meredith and I certainly have many disagreements, but I think she's completely spot-on here. There is absolutely no legitimate reason to bar Ahmadinejad from speaking. Yes, he's one of the worst people walking the face of this earth, and I definitely don't think that anyone who isn't an Islamic fundamentalist would shed a tear upon hearing of his death. But that doesn't mean that we should shout him down if he tries to speak. Kuffar, the fact that some people disgraced the principles of free speech and free flow of ideas when Gilchrist spoke at Columbia last year does not mean that it's okay to do the same to Ahmadinejad. I find Gilchrist incredibly wrongheaded, but he should be able to put his thoughts out there in the marketplace of ideas, where I am confident that, once people get over their tribalistic reaction to people with a different skin color, they will not win many adherents. Similarly, I find Ahmadinejad's words deplorable, but the fact of the matter is that he should not be silenced when he speaks them. Jason Aschenbrand was technically correct when he posted above that the First Amendment does not require that Columbia give Ahmadinejad a platform from which to speak. But Mr. Aschenbrand is hanging on the word of the First Amendment while completely ignoring its spirit--what would the framers of the Bill of Rights (including such men as James Madison, who vociferously opposed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which suppressed anti-government expression in the early days of the United States) say in a situation such as this? I submit that they would argue that Ahmadinejad should be heard, even if only to have each and every one of his statements ripped apart by clearer thinking people. Finally, I think that everyone should think very hard when Meredith asks, "[w]hat are we scared of?" The great philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote that unless a statement is contested, �?it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds;" this will in turn �?cumber the ground and prevent the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction from reason or personal experience.�? We should all consider Mill's point here--we should not want people to think Ahmadinejad is a nut just because a lot of other people think that. We want people to think that because they've heard what he has to say and they cannot find a shred of truth or goodness in it. If we go trying to shut him up every time he talks, we run the risk of finding ourselves in the former situation.

I am a pretty liberal guy, a lawyer, think George Bush is a disgrace, and believe invading Iraq was possible the worst piece of foreign policy ever in the U.S.. Also, I love the fact I live in a nation where this piece of human waste can be invited to speak somewhere. HOWEVER, YOU MS. MCBRIDE ARE A FUCKING IGNORANT TWAT! "Can we legitimately criticize Ahmadinejad for willingly ignoring factual evidence that the Holocaust did, indeed, happen when Bush invaded Iraq over non-existent weapons of mass destruction?" REALLY??? People like you, and the retard 9/11 truth brigade make me embarrassed to call my self any kind of leftist.

Pretty good column, well-written. I do have to agree though with some of the criticisms, specifically those attacking this sentence: "Can we legitimately criticize Ahmadinejad for willfully ignoring factual evidence that the Holocaust did, indeed, happen when Bush invaded Iraq over non-existent weapons of mass destruction?" Umm, yes Meredith we can legitimately criticize Ahmadinejad for that because it's a blatantly false view which he and other perpetuate as a sort of propaganda campaign against Judaism. However, we can also legitimately criticize the president for lying to the American public about the rationale behind invading Iraq. That's the glory of the First Amendment!

You are absolutely correct! Those who wish to silence Ahmadinejad, curtail our civil rights, and build American empires around the world, ie. Republicans, are far more dangerous and thus should be shouted down at any and all Universities where they attempt to speak. Less threatening political figures like Ahmadinejad should be coddled and treated to Constitutional rights that are typically reserved for citizens.

Would you have invited Adolph Hitler to speak at Penn in 1940? Would you invite David Duke, Usama Bin Laden or a leader of the Arian National to Speak at Penn today?

[QUOTE id="214aca0e-7a84-4a8b-88ef-d252480dc34d"]You are absolutely correct! Those who wish to silence Ahmadinejad, curtail our civil rights, and build American empires around the world, ie. Republicans, are far more dangerous and thus should be shouted down at any and all Universities where they attempt to speak. Less threatening political figures like Ahmadinejad should be coddled and treated to Constitutional rights that are typically reserved for citizens.[/QUOTE] This is so profoundly inconsistent thinking I can hardly stand it. You cannot defend free speech in one breath and then urge that Republicans be �?shouted down�? in the next. �?Ahmadinejad should be coddled�?- Do you even know what coddled means? Universities exist to seek the truth. Yes, the protection of speech is part of that mission. However, deniers of the Holocaust are obviously not committed to the pursuit of truth as the fact of its existence is not a matter of opinion. As such, I find Columbia�?s invitation to Ahmadinejad highly offensive, inappropriate, and smug.

As I read on a Columbia Spectator message board on this topic, inviting someone who denies the Holocaust to give a talk on world affairs is like the math department inviting someone who argues that 2+2=5. And I don't want to hear anyone say that in some netherworld of math, 2+2=5. This is a disgrace.

i think meredith is hot... so she has to be right in all her views; and if you disagree you're a stupid retard