Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to the US?

Question

Today he has arrived in New York to give a lecture to students at Columba University. The NeoCons have portrayed this man as Americas greatest enemy. What do people think about him visiting the US to speak to students?

Answer 1

Agreed with Fraginalnoypi.

He's just one of the world leader. Why can't he do that. He also has the right to speak. I'm tired to listen only one side of the story, that is America's point of view. It's nice to have someone who dares to challenge the American leader, however controversial that person might be.

Answer 2

*Bangs head on table in frustration.*

I am so tired of people who say that inviting Ahmadinejad to speak is a matter of free speech. It seems that a rather hefty chunk of the population believes, incomprehensibly, that anything less than an unfettered access to an American Ivy League institution's lectern is tantamount to a denial of Ahmadinejad's "right to speak". This is a logical fallacy and an exercise in intellectual dishonesty.

First and foremost, Columbia University is a private institution, which has a legal right right to invite -- or NOT invite -- whomever the hell it pleases. So at least the question of anyone's CONSTITUTIONAL right to speak is simply irrelevant here.

Next. Ahmadinejad owns and operates his country's mass media. He has vast resources at his disposal for delivering his message to all corners of the world (with the exception of, perhaps, North Korea), his words are copiously reported by English-language Middle-Eastern news sources, and I don't think there is a single American who hasn't gotten Ahmadinejad's views from the horse's mouth. So the idea that Ahmadinejad is someone without an opportunity to be heard is simply absurd.

In any event, since the Constitutional right of "free speech" is inapplicable, the idea of "free speech" in an institution of higher learning is a vague, indeterminate concept, derived from the equally nebulous principle of "academic freedom". In reality, however, those terms are illusory. I haven't read the Columbia U course catalogue, but something tells me that you won't find in it courses on creationist biology, eugenics, physiognomy, alchemy, or anything upholding the theory of bodily humors. I don't see Columbia U inviting such speakers as Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter -- and I won't even mention the Minutemen. If Ahmadinejad has a right to speak at Columbia U, don't all the other whackjobs also? The reality is, universities do not serve as indiscriminant conduits for all sorts of views. On the contrary, they selectively convey -- to the student body and to the world -- a certain set of "truths", whether in politics, history, humanities, or science; and only those "controversial" new views which are at least basically consistent with those truths are permitted. BECAUSE universities are selective in this manner, their invitation of a particular speaker inevitably constitutes an endorsement of his views, and lectures delivered in a university setting of necessity bear an imprimatur of correctness, truth, and respectability. This is why all disclaimers of the "we do not endorse" variety invariably ring hollow, Bollinger's vitriol notwithstanding.

There is something else in the attitude of my fellow liberals that bothers me in no small measure. I feel I have something to say the world; can *I* lecture at Columbia? I can anticipate all sorts of responses to this: you aren't famous enough, you aren't controversial enough, you won't get a big enough audience, you aren't a state leader, etc. But then, is a "right to speak" a basic human right, or is it a right reserved for those animals who are more equal than others? It is distressing how many people think on the assumption that someone who possesses "controversial" views -- and is preferably a homocidal maniac, religious fanatic, and anti-Semite -- has more of a "right to speak" than anyone else; that academics and celebrities have rights to self-expression that mere mortals do not; and that in Ahmadinejad's case, the so-called "right to speak" entails not merely a right to speak per se, but a right to be accommodated with a forum, and a right to an endorsement of his beliefs.

Answer 3

I resent the reality that, he became invited as a wager and relatively became humiliated and laughed at! it wasn't cool. The rubdown by ability of the end result would be that, individuals have no status and undesirable in subculture. no count how insane the guy is( like bush is a proper occasion of sane character!), whilst is invited as a focused visitor, should not be dealt with like that, in particular by ability of the Columbia's president!! yet one greater reason for the completed international to snigger at US!! have self belief or no longer, he made greater sense than bush!

Answer 4

I say let him speak,America is a democracy...those in opposition have the right to demonstrate,the fact he can learn more from the Americans than Americans can learn from him !

Answer 5

I think Columbia University is once again showing itself for what it is: a cesspool of America hating commie wack-jobs. They refuse to allow the founder of the Minutemen to speak there (because he advocates enforcing existing American law) but they'll welcome someone who has denied the holocaust and has pledged to wipe Israel off the map. How typical of the scum that infests our institutions of higher learning!

Answer 6

You don't bring a "Rabid" dog in the house, as they can't control who they bite or why!! USMC 60-68

Answer 7

Americans usually rely on their government to tell them what to think, can Americans at least listen, they don't have to believe.

Answer 8

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a great leader who could emulate his qualities to the students. It was just ironic that his image was tarnished with propaganda against his personality.

Answer 9

I hope someone puts a bullet through his head.

He is just that: America's #1 enemy.

-Neocon

Answer 10

I think US government is scared. If people get to meet him, they will see that he is not what the zionist propaganda makes him out to be.