And at the end of the match, it's Ahmadinejad 10, Columbia 0. That's right; Columbia University, and all the Western liberal values it champions, has lost. It has been "schooled," by the infamous President of Iran. I say defeated for several reasons. Firstly, though Columbia's President Lee Bollinger professed to be hosting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the name of free speech, this was in actuality an empty claim. I'm speaking not of the traditional "hate speech is not free speech" rhetoric, but of the very concept and privileges guaranteed by the right of free speech. The First Amendment, as I'm sure Constitutional Law Professor Bollinger knows, states, "Congress shall make no law . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Note: Under the "right of free speech," the Constitution doesn't include a right to have a stage before a live audience of 600 and a broadcast audience of tens of thousands more. It does not include a right to have a university spend hundreds of thousands of dollars hosting the speaker.

If I were to ask to speak in Columbia's largest auditorium, would I be granted the stage? Of course not. But would Columbia be denying me my "right of free speech"? Again, no. Free speech is a guarantee that one's ideas are not censored. The individual is guaranteed the right to stand on a street corner and speak his mind. The individual is not guaranteed any right to a broadcast on national television or an audience at a university.

Ahmadinejad had been granted the right to free speech long before last week's visit to Columbia. His beliefs and ideas are well-known. He has spoken countless times before.

By inviting Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia, the university was not guaranteeing him a right to free speech; they were giving him a free stage. Ahmadinejad did not ask to speak at Columbia; the university invited him. They voluntarily handed him the microphone and amplified his voice. They drew the attention of millions of people across the country to exactly what the Holocaust-denying, human rights-violating, racist-president would have wanted.

And at the end of the day, what was the point? Did Columbia engage Ahmadinejad in a real debate? The president responded to Bollinger's 10-minute introductory speech in which he attacked Ahmadinejad from every angle, simply by criticizing Bollinger as insulting and disrespectful. Even in the question-and-answer session Ahmadinejad didn't answer his questions and challenges directly.

Which brings us to the second way in which Columbia was defeated-though Ahmadinejad may not have made an argument that could persuade a western audience, he clearly demonstrated that he was in complete control of the situation. While Bollinger spoke in a nervous voice, only occasionally glancing up from his notes and not once looking at the president-whom he was directly addressing, Ahmadinejad spoke with confidence and determination. His speech ran overtime by several minutes, not, I would argue, because he felt he hadn't had enough time to express himself, but because by ignoring the moderator's polite calls of "Um, Mr. President." Ahmadinejad was demonstrating his power over the university. He was calling the shots.

The President of Iran has won. Columbia University didn't give him the right to free speech; they gave him a free stage on which to project his appalling beliefs. Columbia gave Ahmadinejad power through speech, and he took it, and then some.



The writer is a member of the Class of 2010