Ironically, I have mixed feelings about such a scenario. On a visceral level, I cannot stand the man or anything he represents. Despite the promises of the Iranian revolution, Iran has remained an oppressive, religiously controlled society. Human rights and basic freedoms are irrelevant in such a society. And yet, I cannot help but be intrigued by what he might say to California’s student bodies. What is his intention? Of course, there would be no better place to “persuade” the next generation of Americans than at the college level as many of Ahmadinejad’s wild antics may be seen more as “cool” than verbal vessels of hate and fear. But on an intellectual level, I would be inclined to grant President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the right to speak on California’s campuses. Although he is not necessarily entitled to protection under the Constitution as an American citizen, I do believe he has the right to speak his mind – even if much of what he says dwells on inflammatory, racist language. After all, how can Americans scorn his country for not allowing freedom or speech while we simultaneously censor him from speaking in public venues here?
At the end of the day, I do believe that most Americans, even young college students, can separate right from wrong when it comes to hateful language and inflammatory speech. For me it’s not what he says that would be the issue, but that we would not allow him to say it. I believe that if he were allowed to speak on campus, a significant portion of the audience will aggressively challenge him in open debate. It is at that moment that everyone in the crowd will see President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for what he truly is. Like most hate-mongers and rabble-rousers, Ahmadinejad will likely cower away from an open, intelligent debate when put to the test. It is for that reason that I believe we MUST allow people like that to speak in public. Our freedom of speech, it would seem, can do more to expose the truth than one might think. I say, let the man talk. And then let him put is big foot in proverbial mouth in the process.
That was a very thought provoking blog John, I have to hand it to you. I also wrote about the same thing however, your view was a little different from mine and made me rethink my own perspective on things. I did not even think about the effects of having a speaker with that kind of social status would have on the school itself. If this person is given the chance to speak it is almost like rewarding them for being part of a hate group and considering even supporting him. It would not only look bad for the college, but for the people associated. I'm not one to vouch for image is everything, but a college or school is not the sort of place that people should be subjected to this sort of speech. It should be by choice that the people listen to this person and in a different scenario. I don't believe it to be very appropriate anymore. Congratulations John you have swayed my mind and made me see some flaws in my blog. I enjoy reading blogs that make me rethink myself. so Thank You!
ReplyDeleteSOOO - we let Hitler speak here, okay, Ahmadinejad speak here and then what, we send Cheney and Rumsfeld to speak there? I think both sets of speakers would be greeted about the same by their audiences. They would be embraced by some, reviled by others, exaulted by a few and condemned by the majority.
ReplyDeleteI'm with you, though. I'd have to go see him speak for myself just to say I saw him. I've always been a people watcher and seeing how the crowd reacted and realizing what perameters we allowed the speaker to abide within would be the most interesting for me. Not really, what he had to say, but what it was that he didn't say and how people received his message. I'm just that way and I think you are, too.
AND, I agree with you here and disagree with the other poster, that college is the ONLY place where this type of speaker would be able to speak to a group. The crazy tea-party activists are a perfect example of what happens when a good idea gets skewed by bad people and then an outside group gets ahold of them and runs it an entirely different direction. Only on a college campus would the receivers of the message be open minded because they would be students and not political fat asses.
Great post.
I think its really great that you chose a specific example here. I actually believe that he did come and speak at a college campus in America, in 2007 he came and spoke at Columbia University. You can find a transcript of his speech here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401042.html
ReplyDeleteIts very interesting discussion and shows that Columbia University was very open to free debate.