Universities have always been nexuses of controversial discussion and debate, but a speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last Monday to students at Columbia University has sparked debate over how the collegiate forum should be used.
Some pundits, politicians and activists criticized Columbia for inviting Ahmadinejad - a controversial figure who has been accused of supporting terrorism and advocating anti-Semitism - to speak at the school. Ahmadinejad's relationship with the United States has been tense over Iran's ongoing nuclear uranium enrichment programs, which U.S. officials fear could lead to Iranian development of nuclear weapons despite Iran's insistence to the contrary.
According to a Sept. 25 New York Times article, Columbia University President Lee Bollinger delivered a hostile introduction to Ahmadinejad's speech in which he said, "Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator." Since then, Bollinger has faced criticism from some who say he publicly insulted a foreign head of state.
At Tufts, students and professors are split on whether or not Ahmadinejad's visit was handled appropriately - and whether inviting the Iranian president to speak was appropriate at all.
Political Science Lecturer Ronnie Olesker said that while she believes in free speech, she would not fully support an invitation to Ahmadinejad to visit Tufts.
"I think that I'm an avid supporter of free speech," Olesker said, "but I think that coming to speak at a college campus is a privilege and not a right. Public discourse is really important, and it's really important to listen to what controversial figures like Ahmadinejad have to say, but not necessarily at our school."
While many Tufts students polled had not heard about Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia, those who had generally said they would support the university if it invited him to speak at Tufts. If a controversial head of state like Ahmadinejad were to visit, however, some students said that the administration should be more respectful of the president than Columbia's administration was.
Junior Diego Villalobos was not opposed to the thought of Ahmadinejad at Tufts or elsewhere, but he did not believe that the Iranian president's visit to Columbia was effective in terms of encouraging discussion.
"I have a conflicted view of the issue, because I think it's good that universities facilitate the passing of information from people who are controversial," Villalobos said. "But with some of the issues that are going on now, I'm not sure that it was the best decision to invite [Ahmadinejad] now. From what I saw of the lecture at Columbia, there was no passing of information on both sides."
Villalobos said that colleges should challenge, but not harshly criticize their guest lecturers - even if the lecturers are controversial.
"If we did invite him, I think that the university should endorse a way of expressing opinions without insulting Ahmadinejad," he said.
Freshman Farheen Momen agreed with Villalobos that university officials should be more respectful of important political figures like Ahmadinejad.
"I think that even if we disagreed with his political views, because we invited him to speak at our school, we should respect his opinions and sort of restrain ourselves from mocking or insulting him," Momen said. "I would not be opposed with him coming to Tufts for the sake of knowledge, but I really don't think that we have a right to tell him or the Iranian people how to run their country."
Momen said it is important not to blindly believe what critics say about Iran.
"I think we hype up a lot of things without knowing the facts," Momen said. "Think about not only how insulting [Bollinger's speech] was to Ahmadinejad, but also to the people of Iran, for the president of Columbia to humiliate one of their leaders."
Olesker agreed that Bollinger's introductory comments were unsuitable for such a high-profile and controversial speaker.
"I thought [Bollinger's comments] were inappropriate, because as the president of an academic institution that had invited Ahmadinejad to speak, I don't think that it was the role of the president of that institution to strike some sort of political point."
She attributed the harsh nature of Bollinger's speech to the criticism Columbia faced leading up to the lecture.
"I think that if there weren't so much backlash to Ahmadinejad being invited in the first place, [Bollinger's] speech would have been very different," she said. "I understand the political and PR motives in inviting him, but I thought that the lecture allowed Ahmadinejad to score some points politically."
Junior Kate Cohen said that while inviting controversial political figures to speak at elite academic institutions can be useful, she did not think that the lecture at Columbia was productive in terms of generating discussion.
"I think that when you expose ideas like Ahmadinejad's, it gives them less credibility," Cohen said. "I think that the exchange of ideas is really important, but at Columbia, it seemed to be less about his ideas than about publicity."
Olesker agreed that the lecture did not encourage useful discussion between America and Iran.
"[The speech] really allowed Ahmadinejad to speak to his domestic viewers," she said. "A lot of the speech was not meant for the [United States], because American viewers were not going to be won over by his speech. Similarly, Bollinger's speech was not a speech to Ahmadinejad."
According to Olesker, while Ahmadinejad's visit will not threaten relations between America and Iran, the lecture may have spawned negative publicity that could bolster Ahmadinejad's reputation in the Middle East.
"I don't think the lecture will have any implication on relations between Iran and the United States, but I do think that it was very lucrative for Ahmadinejad," she said. "He propelled his imaged as a leader of the Middle East and on the broader international spectrum."
Though some Jumbos may support the idea of Ahmadinejad coming to Tufts, Olesker said their opinions on the matter might change if he were actually scheduled to visit.
"I'm not sure if public student opinion wouldn't sway against it if he were really invited to Tufts," Olesker said.
At Columbia, where the issue was a reality rather than a hypothetical, students were divided on the issue, according to Columbia sophomore Rajiv Lalla. Lalla estimated that Columbia students were "split about 50-50" on whether the university should have invited Ahmadinejad to speak.
"Half the people thought that his views were so heinous: 'They're so completely against everything we believe, how can we give him a forum?'" Lalla said. "And the other half seemed to think that a university's environment is the pinnacle of a forum of free speech, and that if we can't give free speech - even to a person we detest - who are we?"
Lalla said he personally disapproved of his invitation to Columbia.
"I personally came out against it," Lalla said. "I thought to myself, why are we engaging someone in rational discussion who does not speak and act rationally? He completely denied that Iran finances terrorism, even though we know that statement to be untrue. When he was asked about his hanging of women and homosexuals, he just went off about how the United States has capital punishment as well."
Olesker agreed that Ahmadinejad's speech did not provide any new perspective on his political beliefs and actions, but she cautioned that it would be unwise to call the president "irrational."
"Those who were expecting to hear something new or different or direct from Ahmadinejad were setting themselves himself up for disappointment," Olesker said. "I was not at all surprised by Ahmadinejad's lack of direct responses to questions. He is a very sophisticated manipulator, but I still wouldn't qualify him as an irrational."
Whether or not students would support Ahmadinejad coming to Tufts, Olesker believes the discussion of the issue is important.
"I think it's important to have the debate, both on campus and off campus," Olesker said. "There were both positive and negative implications of his visit to Columbia ... one positive implication is that students are talking about Ahmadinejad now."
