Not since the Cold War has the importance of ideas and ideologues been more apparent within the international community than it is now. Whether the United States is in the midst of a "Clash of Civilizations" between East and West, as some academics claim, or we are simply in the early and consequential stages of globalization, the free flow of political rhetoric has become increasingly vital to understanding and advancing our foreign relations.
It is for this reason, among others, that we applaud Columbia University's decision to allow Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — who has denied the Holocaust, sponsored terrorism in the Middle East and called for the destruction of Israel — the opportunity to speak on its campus Monday.
As students and current members of the academic community, we understand that it is our principal duty to seek a continuing education based on the search for truth through the free flow of ideas. If anything, the university is and should remain an arena for uninhibited free speech — regardless of the amount of dissent that speech may rightfully engender.
Indeed, our own University of Wisconsin System is no stranger to the controversy that invariably surrounds academic freedom.
In 2005, UW-Whitewater allowed University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill to speak at its university despite the fact the professor had written an essay wherein he likened the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks to Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann and proclaimed the attacks were proper vindication for U.S. foreign policy. Despite his radical assertions, the university held firm to the guiding principles of free speech and allowed him to speak.
This editorial board strongly supported UW-Whitewater's decision, quoting Justice John Paul Stevens from a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision: "The First Amendment presupposes that the freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty — and thus a good unto itself — but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole."
These verities remain as true today as they ever have been. They applied to Mr. Churchill, they applied last year to Sept. 11 conspiracy theorist and UW-Madison lecturer Kevin Barrett and they apply to the decidedly fanatical president of Iran, Mr. Ahmadinejad.
In addressing Mr. Ahmadinejad and the hoards of criticism for allowing the Iranian president to engage at his university, Columbia President Lee Bollinger said: "In the moment, the arguments for free speech will never seem to match the power of the arguments against, but what we must remember is that this is precisely because free speech asks us to exercise extraordinary self-restraint against the very natural but often counterproductive impulses that lead us to retreat from engagement with ideas we dislike and fear."
Such is the essence of the frightening, yet revolutionary, concept of the First Amendment, and we are wholly encouraged that our fellow institute of higher education has followed such compelling principles.
Most importantly, however, is that while the educational benefits of hearing Mr. Ahmadinejad speak are evident, our commendation of Columbia's decision comes not so much from the university's willingness to give Mr. Ahmadinejad a platform from which to address the American people, as much as its commitment to truly confront his radical dogma.
In his opening address, precluding Mr. Ahmadinejad's speech and ensuing question and answer session, Mr. Bollinger challenged Mr. Ahmadinejad to directly respond to the issues of Iran's human rights violations against women, homosexuals, members of the Baha'i faith, journalists and scholars. He demanded an explanation for the denial of the Holocaust, the claims to destroy Israel and the state-sponsored support of Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, the Taliban and insurgent leaders in Iraq. Mr. Bollinger also called for an answer to the continued violations of the International Atomic Energy Agency, doubted the Iranian president had the "intellectual courage" to answer his questions and addressed him as a "cruel and petty dictator."
While the principles of the First Amendment call for us to allow ideas and ideologues truly uninhibited expression — be it Mr. Ahmadinejad, communism or neo-Nazism — truth and justice, especially in the university, call for us to retort whenever appropriate. We applaud Mr. Bollinger's motives and candid criticism of a truly cruel and petty dictator.
It is hard to imagine a greater example of the American ideal of free speech than allowing one of America's greatest enemies the opportunity to engage in a sincerely democratic forum at one of the finest American universities. We can only imagine the international progress that would ensue if the true opportunity to exercise free speech were permitted — within the general and academic discourse — in the very country from which Mr. Ahmadinejad hails.