Julie Steinberg | Counterpoint: Academic freedom can go too far

Columbia University's decision to host Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on its campus today before his visit to the United Nations has provoked heated discussion among students and political pundits alike.

One Facebook group called for students to welcome Ahmadinejad to America so as to better understand his views; presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, on the other hand, loudly criticized the University's invitation.

While Ahmadinejad's role as a powerful participant in Middle Eastern politics is undeniable, the justification for his speaking at Columbia is not.

To be more specific, President Ahmadinejad should not have the honor of addressing American students from a platform provided by one of the nation's most prestigious universities.

Let us be clear about whom we are discussing. Mr. Ahmadinejad is no Ward Churchill or Norman Finkelstein, two controversial scholars whose lectures at universities have also stirred much debate. Nor is he comparable to Hugo Chavez, the disgruntled Venezuelan president whose diatribe against President Bush on the floor of the United Nations sparked more amusement than fear.

Rather, Ahmadinejad is a different type, one who has continually flouted international norms and regulations. In his October 2005 speech at "The World without Zionism" conference, he called for Israel to be wiped off the map. He has been accused of funneling both arms and money to both Iraqi insurgents and the Lebanese extremist group Hezbollah.

On the domestic front, Human Rights Watch has raised concerns about public stonings and torture in Iranian jails under the president's regime. Perhaps most troubling is Ahmadinejad's refusal to adhere to the International Atomic Energy Agency's protocols for the development of Iran's nuclear program.

Columbia president Lee Bollinger sets out a strong case for hosting Ahmadinejad: He wants to question the Iranian president about Tehran's nuclear ambitions, support for terrorism, Holocaust denial, etc.

While Bollinger's intentions are worthy, bringing Ahmadinejad to campus confers legitimacy onto those viewpoints.

While the university itself may not condone Holocaust denial, bringing someone to campus who does simply demonstrates that these views are worthy of reasonable discussion.

In short, the university acknowledges that these views may be palatable to some, and thus provides a sound platform for the airing of such lunacies.

A legitimate platform is being offered in the guise of dissemination of information when really it serves no purpose other than as an unwitting instrument of those who would spread disinformation.

Several student groups released a statement last week that praised Columbia's invitation, stating that "in a university setting, no view is too disreputable to be excluded." Yet at what point does "disreputable" become more than mildly offensive? Would the university invite David Duke to campus? (The former Klansman, incidentally, spoke at the Iranian Holocaust Denial Conference in December 2006). The question morphs into a deeper look at society: To what extent does (and should) a liberal society tolerate illiberalism?

While academic freedom and the First Amendment are Western ideals that should be appreciated, universities should not invite controversial speakers simply to exercise their right to do so.

If Bollinger wants to lead an informed discussion about Iranian policies, he can do so without compromising the university's integrity.

Instead, he could arrange for panels and lectures to be conducted and leave the cross-examination to the UN.

In fact, some politicians and academics, such as Rep. Tom Lantos and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, have even protested Ahmadinejad's scheduled talk at the UN, calling on the body to indict him instead, on charges of incitement to genocide under the Geneva Convention.

Clearly, there are some questions that need to be asked regarding Iranian intentions and actions in the international arena- questions that should be asked in a forum that actually has the capacity to respond to, and the mechanisms in place, to deal with the answers.

Dissemination of views that are simply unpopular should not be discouraged. The spreading of views that are flagrantly dangerous, however, is a different matter, and one that shouldn't be supported by a leading American institution.

Julie Steinberg is a College junior from Boca Raton, Fla. and a former blogger for The Spin. Her email address is bjulie@sas.upenn.edu.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.