“Land of the free, home of the brave” took on new meaning recently when Columbia University hosted Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The president of the Middle Eastern nation spoke at the university, dropping hints that the Holocaust was a lie, that the state of Israel should be abolished, that homosexuals do not exist and that women are not persecuted in Iran. The point is not that Ahmadinejad spoke on any range of topics, but rather that he was allowed to speak at all.
It is a testament to the incredible American virtue of democratic fairness. Everyone should have their say, even if their say is not agreed upon by someone else. It is freedom, and one of our most basic freedoms: the freedom of speech.
Any group of people might be upset, or indeed irate, that an American university would deem it acceptable to host a man that many consider to be an enemy of the United States. We, however, applaud the effort.
Hosting speakers of every variety, and having an audience of students, faculty, staff and the general public, fosters the educational atmosphere that U.S. universities and colleges should strive to achieve. Hearing different points of view-while not necessarily accepting them-is what makes the democratic system in the United States successful. The problem with having controversial speakers in educational settings is that some universities, such as Saint Louis University, choose to censor who is allowed to speak to an audience on campus.
It is possible that if a speaker has contrary views to the Catholic teachings, that person might not be invited, or allowed to speak on SLU property, and certainly not under the auspices of the University itself. This, then, is a failing in the Catholic education system at the collegiate level: Preventing students from hearing speakers of views that seem to be counter to Catholic views limits students’ education and exposure to the world.
There are clear benefits to having a controversial figure like Ahmadinejad speak on a college campus. One of the benefits is that the speaker is in the country and speaking under the pretenses of offering a unique educational experience. Simply being on a college campus does not lend credibility to the speaker’s arguments or statements, but suggests that students value the spoken words as potential research material.
Again, it is stressed that simply because a speaker comes to the United States, or indeed to a U.S. university, does not constitute belief in the statements that speaker makes. The idea is that students, college students especially, should be exposed to as many differing points of view as possible so as to draw their own conclusions and opinions. This is the nature and backbone of U.S. colleges.
The controversial figures who come to speak in the United States perhaps do not expect to be welcomed with open arms and cheers of love, but as students, and as a university community, we can at least listen. We may not agree with what is being said, but we can still view the speaker as a valuable enhanced learning opportunity.
In the future, it would be most beneficial for the collegiate atmosphere at SLU if the Catholic teachings did not interfere with education, but rather enhanced and guided the learning of students. Perhaps then, with an eye to a more worldly education, the University can play host to more controversial, but nonetheless educational, speakers.
