Toast of the town

Unless you were living under a rock this week, you probably heard that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, was visiting the United States. While in New York City to address the United Nations, he was invited by Columbia University to deliver a lecture Monday.\nNot surprisingly, Ahmadinejad’s outlandish statements were the focal point of the mainstream media’s coverage. For instance, an assertion by the president that Iran has no homosexuals was widely disparaged by news outlets. It seems necessary to point out the blatant hypocrisy of the U.S. mocking Iran for its stance on gay rights, while denying equal marriage rights to millions of gay men and women. \nThis existence of double standards concerning Middle Eastern countries was a major theme of the president’s speech to the university. He railed against Western countries preventing Iran from developing peaceful nuclear technology. According to Ahmadinejad, some “big powers” were creating a monopoly over science and preventing other nations from achieving scientific development as well. The president attributed these differing standards to a “distance in human values, moral values and the teachings of the divine prophets.” \nAhmadinejad’s concerns are legitimate – Israel is a non-signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and is believed to possess nuclear warheads. Moreover, the Bush administration signed a deal in 2006 with India that allows the country to substantially step up its nuclear weapons production. \nA source of controversy for Ahmadinejad has been his denial of the Holocaust and unfair characterization as an anti-Semite. While it is easy to dismiss the president’s constant rails against Israel, nestled within them is an issue overlooked by many Americans: the plight of the Palestinians. As a result of an unjust Israeli policy that promotes ethnic cleansing in places such as Jerusalem, more than 4 million Palestinians have been classified as refugees. \nThere is no denying that Ahmadinejad espouses some dangerous rhetoric. The question is, does this brand of rhetoric have a place on college campuses? Furthermore, who decides the validity of such opinions? \nI was born and brought up in a foreign country, and from a young age, American universities occupied a mythic status in my life. Apart from representing academic and creative freedom, they embodied intellectual engagement. What does it say about this system, then, if we decide to censor speech that we find disagreeable? \nAhmadinejad, who was a university lecturer before entering the field of politics, also recognized the dangers posed by such a singular frame of mind. Appealing as an academic, the president expressed regret that opposition to his visit came mostly from groups who claimed to believe in the freedom of speech and information. \nWhile American society has made great strides in tolerance of different cultures and religions, we have remained woefully inept at accepting diversity of thought, whether liberal or conservative. Any attempt at honest discussion of Israeli aggression is labeled as anti-Semitic. After Monday night, it has become apparent that in more ways than one: We have become exactly what we fear.