Selective Something-Or-Other

I'm a little tired of the various pitches on Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia University. This one, from Andrew Sullivan, is typical:

But I wonder: would Columbia ever invite a right-wing extremist with the same views as Ahmadinejad on women, gays, Israel and the Holocaust? Or do you have to be a brown-skinned, terrorist-enabling, nuclear-proliferating, certifiable nut-job to get the invite?

Columbia invited Jim Gilchrist to speak in 2006. Gilchrist is the founder of the Minutemen (who among other things spend so much time and effort guarding our border with Canada against illegal Mexican immigrants -- don't ask). I'd hardly consider him the prototype of rational centrist democratic ideals. Sullivan is 'way off base here, but I guess if you think the country resides in your navel, you're going to miss a few.

I've seen this too much, all from the right, and from the left I am hearing statements about let him express his ideas and see where the chips fall. Y'know what? He gave his speech, he got laughed at and booed, especially on the statements on gays in Iran that Sullivan quoted. Does Sullivan mention that? No. Inconvenient truths somehow don't make it into the monologue. (To be fair, he does mention laughter in a general way in a later post.)

I'm also finding an almost universal stance (not a wide stance, mind you, but a narrow one, fitting the vision) that "well, see, only left-wing radicals get invited to speak at major American universities." Demonstrably not true. And how can anyone link Admedinejad and the American left? Anyone aside from a Republican, I mean -- we do recognize the logical deficits in that camp. (Hmm -- I wonder who gets invited to speak at Liberty University? Or Regent University? Any guesses?)

One comment I have about this: if you want to see the free marketplace of ideas in action, look at speakers at university campuses. Sure, the kids are easily influenced (look how many go from Marx to Ayn Rand). But they are also idealists, in love with ideas, and absolutely fearless when it comes to pinning you to the wall demanding justifications and reasons for what you say. That's what it means.

To get a sense of the kinds of dialogues and comments I'm talking about here, check out the discussion at EA Forums on this topic. Quite instructive.

If you want a good take on what's really been happenening, here's Admadeniblog, coverage by the staff of the Columbia Spectator. And note the audience reaction after the "no gays in Iran" remark.

I've asked this question before and I'm asking it again, of all those who think we should limit free speech: What are you afraid of?