Generally, I write editorials for the sake of promoting discussion. Rarely, I feel incited to respond to an argument out of anger.
However, upon reading Matthew Lander's editorial, "'Let the speaker speak' - why?" in the Sept. 26 issue of the Tufts Daily, I cannot help but respond with the vehemence I felt while reading his argument against the speech of Iranian President Ahmadinejad at Columbia University.
Initially, I underlined each flagrant error in reasoning, but to save you the banality of a Jeffersonian list of "injuries and usurpations," I wish to organize my counter-argument into three error groups found in Lander's editorial: 1) attacks on the president and Daily staff, 2) inconsistencies, and 3) personal biases.
Attacks
It only requires a brief skim of the editorial to locate a conspicuously entwined series of assaults on the Iranian president and the arguments of the Daily staff for his right to speak without a damning preface from the university's president.
Immediately, Lander finds it easy to attack Ahmadinejad and the Daily staff by arguing that because the president is a bad man, the "true injustice" is that his speech "was allowed to happen at all."
Why? Because he has questionable - perhaps condemnable - policies? Unquestionably, I do not endorse the statements of the Iranian president. His claims about the Holocaust, homosexuals and women are unsettling, and certainly his attitude toward the United States is frightening, but the simple fact that I don't agree with his arguments doesn't give me the liberty to suspend his right to speech.
Along that reasoning, why allow anyone with whom we disagree to speak? Personally, I'm not politically aligned with Bill O'Reilly and sometimes find his arguments to be erroneous, so can't we just cancel his venues for discussion? Further still, Lander claims that the Daily erred journalistically because it "[failed] to identify the leader as what he undeniably is: a terrorist in presidential clothing."
For Lander to attack the Daily for not labeling someone a terrorist - as Lander himself considers the president - is baffling in its assumption that his definitions are universally accepted.
Inconsistencies
I find Lander's greatest inconsistency following the only point with which I truly agree in his editorial. Lander begins by arguing (correctly, in my opinion) that "constructive dialogue and purposeful debate" are defined by "a respect for the other's viewpoint."
Next, however, he qualifies the statement. According to Lander, because Ahmadinejad's beliefs on the Holocaust are not grounded in reality, his entire argument and right to respect are void. This is frankly unfair. It implies that because we disagree with his argument, or even that it is wrong, he has both nothing correct to say and shouldn't be afforded the opportunity to say it.
Even if his arguments were to be empirically wrong - which is certainly fair to argue - is it not beneficial to our understanding of Iranian politics and, potentially, culture, to listen? To muddle his argument further, Lander brings in a quote that asserts we must know our enemies (as Lander assumes Iranians are our enemies).
And yet, he claims, "We must fight our democratic instinct to respect that with which we do not agree." So must we attempt to know the Iranians while simultaneously denying them our respect or the right to openly speak?
Personal Biases
Throughout the editorial, Lander uses his personal attacks on Ahmadinejad and the Daily staff to rationalize his arguments, when it is quite clear that those arguments are based on a solid foundation of bias.
My principal frustration is that Lander refuses to assert such arguments as bias; he purely assumes that his labels - "corrupt megalomaniac," "the world's most dangerous political leader," the last-ditch comparison to Hitler - rest entirely in fact. Lander even manages to employ an impressive false dichotomy: Either one supports repressing Ahmadinejad's right to speak, or one "casually [ignores] the horror of Ahmadinejad rule."
What of the people like me, who are still frightened by his policies and yet are curious to understand him? It's this with-us-or-against-us policy that impedes whole and accurate perceptions.
Frankly, my argument comes down to one question: Do Ahmadinejad's policies, while alarming, give us sufficient ground to disrespect a guest speaker before allowing him to speak?
I argue no. While Lander asserts, "Ahmadinejad and Western audiences can never understand each other," I can't help that statements like this are the propagators of our misunderstandings.
Is it not a "grown up" philosophy to hear all sides of the issue, to respect the opinions of others, or to attempt to understand one of the great cultural chasms of contemporary society?
Matt Sleeman is a freshman who has not yet declared a major.
