By Brenden Cline

     As a first year at Columbia University, I've grappled with deciding what message can be taken away from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to our campus. Aware that I was unable to fully appreciate the spectacle at the time, I've struggled to discern what message can be drawn from his visit in hindsight. The overlooked significance of the invitation, I believe, lies not with the disparity in Americans' reactions to the speaker, but with the insight and support it lends Iran's perilously suppressed academia.

     In a key moment of his speech, Ahmadinejad claimed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401042. html), "Right now in our universities on a daily basis there are hundreds of meetings like this. They hear, they talk, they ask questions. They welcome it."Aside from his traditional repertoire of finagling words and dodging questions, this exaggeration was particularly difficult to digest. Like his insistence on the lack of homosexual Iranians, this outright misrepresentation of Iranian intellectual life was an instance of erroneous wishful thinking from a consistently self-justifying dictator. Ahmadinejad seeks to claim strength through parity with Western institutions, but his power relies instead on puppetry. Iran's government doesn't foster the dialogue Ahmadinejad takes credit for and utilizes as a guest abroad; on the contrary, it fears the effect this free flow of information will have and reacts by oppressing the curiosity of the Iranian academia.

Brandon Hammer is a sophomore at Columbia College in New York City and a junior fellow of the Roosevelt Institution.

On Monday, October 8, Iranian students protested a speech given by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Tehran University to open the new school year. This event came on the heels of a highly controversial appearance at Columbia University. Protestors from across the political spectrum denounced the decision of Columbia President Lee Bollinger to invite the Iranian leader for three main reasons. Firstly, they held that the invitation gave Ahmadinejad a platform from which he could spread his hateful ideology. Secondly, they argued that allowing him to speak here would give Iranian media the opportunity to legitimize their leader and his views among the populace. And thirdly, they held that, because there is no free speech in Iran, we need not extend to him that right when he is in the United States. Nevertheless, the protests and subsequent government action on October 8 once again show why these claims are inaccurate and underline why it was so important that Ahmadinejad come to Columbia.

Perhaps the most frequently repeated argument against Bollinger's invitation to President Ahmadinejad was that it would give him a soapbox from which he could disseminate his offensive views. Protesters felt that, if we allowed Ahmadinejad to speak, he would have the opportunity to deny the Holocaust, threaten Israel, and spread homophobic and misogynistic hatred. Nevertheless, the fact that various American newspapers covered this small speech serves to indicate that Ahmadinejad has no difficulty in getting the necessary media coverage in order to spread his controversial views. He did not need to come to Columbia to do that. By coming to Columbia, however, Ahmadinejad relinquished his immunity from dissent. Students had the opportunity to challenge his views and question him about Iran's suspicious and harmful activities in the Middle East.

By Chris Daniels and Adrian Haimovich

Chris Daniels is a junior majoring in religion and applied mathematics at Columbia University and is the Vice President of the Columbia University College Democrats.   Adrian Haimovich is a sophomore majoring in biomedical engineering at Columbia University and is the President of the Roosevelt Institution at Columbia, a student-run progressive policy think tank.  

Monday's appearance by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Columbia University's campus was a hallmark event in a new era of student activism.  On a campus notorious for rushing stages and taking hostages, this day held the possibility for chaos.  But we instead saw students coming together, championing two of our country's greatest ideals: the rights of free speech and free assembly.

After Columbia announced Ahmadinejad's acceptance last week, leaders from many campus organizations responded, working to ensure that students could both engage Ahmadinejad and voice opposition to his hateful policies.  At the demand of undergraduates, Columbia allowed all students to submit questions and to watch a simulcast in various locations across campus; students also organized a peaceful forum in which every student group, regardless of creed or message, was able to voice their concerns about Ahmadinejad.  The Columbia campus was not satisfied by any passive interaction. The students demanded a dialogue and an opportunity to challenge Ahmadinejad.

Aaron Welt is a sophomore majoring in history at Columbia University.  He hails from Chappaqua, New York.  Aaron is the outreach coordinator for the Columbia University Roosevelt Institution and is an active member of the Columbia University College Democrats.

So he came. This afternoon President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad exercised his free speech rights on Columbia University's campus and the aura and enigma surrounding the Iranian leader quickly evaporated. It came as no surprise that Mr. Ahmadinejad is nothing more than a disingenuous politician. His opening words were a cryptic theological affirmation of science and truth while his question and answer session was a futile game of cat and mouse in which it appeared the mouse got away. In this sense, I do not think a serious analysis of Mr. Ahmadinejad's words are merited except for their implications regarding American policy, of which there is much to discuss.  

I didn't come away with a new view of Ahmadinejad but rather with a new view of America. To me Ahmadinejad is still a tyrannical demagogue who employs half truths and lies to maintain his grip on power. But he did reveal much about the state of America's moral integrity in the Middle East and Muslim world today, which is clearly at a nadir.

Nathan Morgante is a junior at Columbia University majoring in History, an Executive Board member of the Columbia University College Democrats and a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institution.

President Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia brings a chance to get a glimpse inside the mind of a man whose regressive politics and nuclear ambitions threaten global security. Rapprochement between Iran and Western powers will require years of persistent diplomacy and nuanced study, but the basic framework for moving forward must be outlined immediately.

Don't attack Iran.
This should go without saying. Iran is several years away from developing a nuclear bomb, and fierce diplomacy--not neoconservative saber-rattling, is the only force that can stop it doing so. If Iran were to openly invade Iraq or launch a missile strike against Israel, the United States would be completely justified in taking action against Iran. More importantly, Iran knows this and its leaders are well aware that any attempt to start a regional war would lead to defeat and almost certainly popular uprising. Another neoconservative war is clearly not in our best interest; rather, we should be working to reduce tensions and diffuse a situation that looks increasingly like the Cold War.  

Engage Iran in dialogue on Iraq.
The last thing the Iranians want is an Iraq that is a haven for Sunni extremist groups. Iran, as a Shiite nation, is a natural enemy of Al-Qaeda and other groups who consider Shiites apostates. Although Iran may not share the American vision for Iraq, stability is in both countries' best interests. The Iranian people would withdraw all support for armed groups in Iraq in exchange for normalized relations with the U.S. by a 2-1 margin. Unfortunately, we have not taken the opportunity to build on this common ground, as the Bush administration has failed to engage Iran in any way. The fact is Iran wields enormous power in the region, and they can make or break the U.S. mission in Iraq; ignoring them is not going to make them go away.