Providing a Public Forum for the Open Discussion of Ideas

Kay Kohl, UCEA Executive Director and CEO
UCEA InFocus, September 2007 (PDF)

Many public and private American universities are committed to providing public forums for dialogue about important, albeit often controversial subjects. In this context, Columbia University’s decision to invite Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak on its campus this month could be viewed as in the best tradition of America’s free speech. Certainly that was the defense offered by Columbia President Lee Bollinger when he refused to rescind the speaking invitation even when faced with a firestorm of criticism from a wide spectrum of opinion-makers in the media, politics, and among the University’s own faculty and alumni.

Technology Expands the Audience

Amadeinejad’s September speech at Columbia generated student protests and demonstrations. Yet it also was an occasion for debate, especially among the hundreds who could not fit into the campus auditorium and gathered outside to watch the Iranian President on a huge video screen.

The forum inside the auditorium opened with a harsh introduction from Columbia’s President. A noted legal scholar in his own right, Bollinger appeared to approach his introduction of Ahmadinejad more as a prosecuting attorney rather than as the leader of a prestigious U.S. academic institution. Bollinger said Ahmadinejad exhibited “all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator.” The President’s introduction was cheered by many. But others found his rebuke of his guest insulting and argued that a university must remain neutral or risk weakening its claim of providing an unbiased forum.

Free Speech Principles at Stake

This raises the question of what level of discourse should apply in an academic environment. As Bollinger sees it, free-speech in wartime is particularly difficult. According to him: ”The country has always been “very, very divided in its political culture and very confrontational in its political dialogue. And that doesn’t mesh well with an academic environment that is supposed to have a norm of suspending one’s beliefs and trying for understanding.”

The Terms of a Speaking Engagement

Ahmadinejad’s appearance at Columbia University raised yet another thorny issue, namely, when considering inviting a controversial speaker to campus how might an institution ensure that the forum has educational value? In the case of a regime leader like Ahmadinejad, demanding genuine reciprocity could be one approach. Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum suggested that Columbia would have done better to ignore the Iranian president, but if committed to inviting him, the University might have done better to present a debate between Ahmadienejad and an Iranian human rights activitist…someone who could argue with him in his own language. Once a university has decided to provide a public platform to a controversial speaker, the organization of the forum often falls to the College of Continuing Studies. And as the Iranian President’s appearance at Columbia suggests, it can be very difficult to balance a desire for open debate with a desire to ensure that the university forum does not elevate the reputation of a tyrannical leader.