Collegiate Times

This week, Columbia University played host to Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, asking him to speak before a crowd of about 600 before attending this year's United Nations General Assembly, which began Tuesday.

Amidst heavy criticism from human rights and Jewish interest groups, Ahmadinejad's arrival was met with mostly negative results.

An unquestionable tyrant, the president of Iran is certainly no friend to America, the West, and the liberal ideals embodied within them. He is an active enemy of free expression, democratic values, and the secular model of government that the great majority of industrialized nations enjoy. Few people in this country will profess support for Ahmadinejad's mode of rule, and even fewer would consider him a good candidate for a university speech.

Columbia's president, Lee Bollinger, received more than his share of criticism for endorsing the president's speech, citing protection of the first amendment as the reason for his visit. An ardent protector of free speech, Bollinger promised to present Ahmadinejad with tough questions that would test the leader's skewed world-view.

Ahmadinejad has actively sought to further restrict the rights of his own people. Women are given rights equivalent to an article of property; homosexuals and non-Muslims are actively prosecuted and oftentimes executed directly under government supervision. He has promoted the total obliteration of Israel.

Clearly, as far as progress is concerned, Ahmadinejad has stridden confidently backward into the dark corridor of Islamic fundamentalism. This, of course, begs the question: If this man is so ardently opposed to western and democratic ideals, why are we as Americans allowing him to set foot on U.S. soil? Who would possibly think it a good idea to invite this modern day Hitler to one of our finest institutions of higher learning?

Machiavelli once said, "Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer." There's no question that Ahmadinejad is a threat to the liberal democratic values that most Americans share, but this is no reason to prevent him from expressing his views.

We as citizens of this country are obligated to tirelessly pursue knowledge of the world around us; meaning that we must take President Ahmadinejad's words in the correct context. The numerous critics of Bollinger's decision to allow him to speak, including presidential hopefuls John McCain, Fred Thompson, and Hillary Clinton, have failed to recognize that taken in proper context, we can learn a great deal from Ahmadinejad's opinions and methods. We know for a fact that there are gays in Iran, and that women are not given even the most basic of rights, although this fearless tyrant leader suggests otherwise.

Clearly, few people listened to Ahmadinejad's speech with the intention of adopting his ideology. Should we criticize his skewed take on the world? Absolutely. However, we must, as Americans, allow even the most controversial figures have their voices heard. After all, we are not perfect.

Women in America could not vote until 1920, the civil rights movement didn't come into full swing until the 1960s, and abolition of discrimination based on sexuality is without a doubt an ongoing process.

We criticize Iran's president for denying his people the most basic of rights, but we are reluctant to remember that we once played victim to many of the same moral discrepancies. Keeping those darker times in America's history in mind, we are able to emphasize our own imperfections and bring them to the front of the social dialogue. By listening to a madman's fanatical take on the world, we draw attention to our own, lesser, flaws.

Without proper knowledge of our past and the world around us, history is truly bound to repeat itself. By opening our doors to one of the most hated men in the world, we are not endorsing his opinions or beliefs, but instead setting a positive example for the rest of the world: we will protect our right to free speech, as well as the rights of our neighbors, no matter the cost.