I think this is the wrong question:
Is a college campus a place for all views to be aired, or are some public figures too extreme to deserve the platform?
It's a question numerous colleges have wrestled with, but perhaps none more frequently of late than Columbia University in New York. The topic is front-and-center again over the invitation to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak there Monday.
President Lee Bollinger has resisted calls to cancel the event, but promised to introduce the talk himself with a series of tough questions on topics including Ahmadinejad's views on the Holocaust, his call for the destruction of the state of Israel and his government's alleged support of terrorism.
[. . .]
Should a university be a kind of public soap box for anyone — or at least any public figure? Or should the university ensure that the imprimatur it gives through speaking invitations reflects general values, like tolerance?
The debate is fairly new, by historical standards.
By their nature, such controversial visitors make high-profile news. Whatever propaganda they might spread will be easily countered. And those who want those from the other side uninvited might want to stop and think that their own political ox will get gored sooner or later.
And while we're distracted by that, we're not paying attention to the real propagandizing, the insidious kind that's much tougher to combat -- from tenured professors who use their daily platform in the classroom to dispense personal and political prejudice disguised as academic wisdom.
