lee bollinger

University president Lee Bollinger invited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at the World Leader's Forum yesterday. In a decision that was criticized (see here and here, he defended the decision based on First Amendment grounds stating, "It is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open the public forum to their voices. To hold otherwise would make vigorous debate impossible." The full text of his comments is here, but the pot shots in his introductory remarks included referring to him as "exhibit[ing] all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator," calling him "ridiculous," and questioning whether he "will have the intellectual courage to answer [Bollinger's] questions."

ADVERTISEMENT

Bollinger's academic credentials as a protector of speech and all things First Amendment are significant. He was the President of the University of Michigan when the school defended its practice of including race in its evaluation of student applications in the marquis Supreme Court case on affirmative action. He's a lawyer who previously served as the University of Michigan's Law School Dean and clerked for a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He is also the author of several books on the First Amendment.

What's a little confusing is that after deciding to let the Iranian President speak as a way to promote debate, he nails the guy to the proverbial cross with his searing introduction. On the one hand, Mr. Ahmadinejad appears to deserve nothing less for his hateful positions and policies. But if that's the case, then why invite him to speak at all? Why would Bollinger give Ivy League credibility and provide a stage under the "premise of freedom of speech" but then proceed to make an introduction that doesn't reflect the goal of facilitating speech? Or maybe you disagree, and you think its okay to make these types of remarks as a part of the speech process.

Sound off...Introductory remarks aside was Bollinger's decision the right one because we should always promote speech or the wrong one because he gave credibility to a despot who should have been denied that stage?

Malcolm Friedberg is the author of Why We'll Win, a book that explains the law behind important social issues to laypeople.

University president Lee Bollinger invited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at the World Leader's Forum yesterday. In a decision that was criticized (see here and here, he defended the decision based on First Amendment grounds stating, "It is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open the public forum to their voices. To hold otherwise would make vigorous debate impossible." The full text of his comments is here, but the pot shots in his introductory remarks included referring to him as "exhibit[ing] all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator," calling him "ridiculous," and questioning whether he "will have the intellectual courage to answer [Bollinger's] questions."

ADVERTISEMENT

Bollinger's academic credentials as a protector of speech and all things First Amendment are significant. He was the President of the University of Michigan when the school defended its practice of including race in its evaluation of student applications in the marquis Supreme Court case on affirmative action. He's a lawyer who previously served as the University of Michigan's Law School Dean and clerked for a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He is also the author of several books on the First Amendment.

What's a little confusing is that after deciding to let the Iranian President speak as a way to promote debate, he nails the guy to the proverbial cross with his searing introduction. On the one hand, Mr. Ahmadinejad appears to deserve nothing less for his hateful positions and policies. But if that's the case, then why invite him to speak at all? Why would Bollinger give Ivy League credibility and provide a stage under the "premise of freedom of speech" but then proceed to make an introduction that doesn't reflect the goal of facilitating speech? Or maybe you disagree, and you think its okay to make these types of remarks as a part of the speech process.

Sound off...Introductory remarks aside was Bollinger's decision the right one because we should always promote speech or the wrong one because he gave credibility to a despot who should have been denied that stage?

Malcolm Friedberg is the author of Why We'll Win, a book that explains the law behind important social issues to laypeople.