Controversial world leaders poisening the mind of our students..., oh no! Options

[Melissa]

So this discussion/debate is stemmed from an extremely controversial event (at my college, at least) when President Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, was invited to speak at Columbia University. Parents, alumni, prominent leaders, reporters, etc. all had something to say - many of which were very negative - and tons of people pulled funding (listening to alumni bitch at us over the phone was not a pleasant task). I had the chance to listen to him speak and have to admit that he's an incredibly intelligent man (which is scary because I think he's a bit crazy), and while he said many things that might cause some outrage (i.e. "there are no homosexuals in Iran" - look the event up if you're interested, etc), that's not the point of this debate.

I really don't care if you agree/disagree with Pres. Ahmadinejad, I'm wondering if you think that it is a positive or negative thing to have such a controversial figurehead speak at an American university. People opposed to the event have said that there is no good outcome and think he should be banned from even landing on American soil. They say that such a smart man like him would only succeed in poisoning the minds of students.

The other side of the argument is that the only way to understand someone under such scrutiny is to listen to him and hear him out. Chris Colombo, our dean, claimed that if Adolf Hitler was alive, he would invite him to come over and explain himself. Wouldn't it be interesting to hear what he said? Hear him say why he did what he did?

So, what's your side of the argument? Should figureheads such as Saddam Hussein, Ahmadinejad, or Hitler be allowed to speak to at universities? Or should they just be completely ignored?

[Reidar]

Supposedly it's true. No homosexuals exist in Iran.

I'm Iranian. There are homosexuals in every country.

Aman-olly-olly-oxen-free-ninijad-iad -- a smart man? Only if his public persona is a ruse for an unapprehended perspicacity (is that not true about most politicians?). If he had any sense of social astuteness, he would have simply denied the accusation of human rights violations on Iranian homosexuals. It wouldn't have been any more farfetched than saying there aren't even any to abuse in the first place; the only difference is that he would be omitting the portion that would look as ridiculous as it did. My father, who served in the Iranian Air Force, actually desires for U.S. intervention in Iran because of the current administration, although he's always been an old warhawk.

However, the concept isn't really any different from, say, Dan Rather granting Saddam Hussein a metaphorical podium through a televised interview, which happened after his regime was outed. It still managed to cast the dictator in a somewhat empathetic light. Ethically, the qualm of inferring legitimacy through an invitation to a vile figure is identical.

If you gave Ahmadinejad an enema, he would fit into a matchbox. Any student who would be politically swayed by his speech is no intellectual loss.

[Melissa]

Any student who would be politically swayed by his speech is no intellectual loss.

I agree with that.

And when I say he's intelligent, I mean that he has a way of speaking to crowds and coming to completely insane conclusions, yet sounding sane and logical all the way there. A speaker like that (any politician, really, I guess) is dangerous because people who don't know much and can't think for themselves might find themselves beginning to agree.

[Reidar]

I agree with that.

And when I say he's intelligent, I mean that he has a way of speaking to crowds and coming to completely insane conclusions, yet sounding sane and logical all the way there. A speaker like that (any politician, really, I guess) is dangerous because people who don't know much and can't think for themselves might find themselves beginning to agree.

If this were true with Aman-I'm-gonna-hurl--ninijad-iad, the majority of Iranians wouldn't loathe him and his regime.

I understand Farsi, and his rhetoric is more broken than the bumbling translator from C-SPAN (although, to her credit, it was quite funny how she mangled his speech so badly).

Well... they're not socially modernized. They still follow a belief system in which frowns upon homosexuality, askin them for an adaptation of democracy is ludicrous in their minds and social acceptability.

Which is why they're contemptible.

Undesired Westernization is one matter (Evola outlines the intricacies of that). Fundamental human rights are quite another.

[Melissa]

If this were true with Aman-I'm-gonna-hurl--ninijad-iad, the majority of Iranians wouldn't loathe him and his regime.

I understand Farsi, and his rhetoric is more broken than the bumbling translator from C-SPAN (although, to her credit, it was quite funny how she mangled his speech so badly).

Hm, true.

I thought the translator kind of sucked, mainly because she seemed ... confused half of the time. I'm not sure if you watched the whole thing, but does most of what she said coincide with what he said? Or did she change/sugarcoat/modify anything?

I'm also curious - what's your point of view on the opening speech that Lee Bolinger gave (if you watched it)? Many people seem to think it was uncalled for and Ahmadinejad did say something along the lines of "you're really rude and i'd never do that to you if you came to my country, bitch."