My first instinct:

Let him talk.

What could Iranian frontman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad possibly say at the Distinguished Lecture Series at Columbia University that could have a serious impact on our culture? Moreover, what possible impact could his mere appearance on the campus of Columbia University do for him and/or to us?

Reasonable people disagree about this. But I say:

Let him talk.

The most vociferous handwringers in all this are generally East-Coast intellectuals who put too much stock in the power of Ivy League universities to influence America and the world.

Let him talk.

True, Columbia President Lee Bollinger believes in free speech only as long as it does not extend to American conservative speech, but that is beside the point.

Let him talk.

For the most part, the Ahmadinejad speech went the way of all Ahmadinejad speeches.

Some things I expected:

Ahmadinejad would be boring.

Ahmadinejad would obfuscate, stonewall, and generally ignore the questions.

Ahmadinejad would not be attractive (although I was relieved not to see the Members Only jacket).

Ahmadinejad would prove incendiary (like a fox) and banal simultaneously.

Something I did not expect:

Columbia President Lee Bollinger, who spent the week sanctimoniously preaching free speech, the merits of open-mindedness, and fair hearings, would cravenly try to save his reputation by excoriating Ahmadinejad in a ten minute rant disguised as an introduction.

Something else I did not expect:

That I would agree with Ahmadinejad, when he pointed out that the prefatory remarks were insulting, inhospitable, and hypocritical:

“In Iran, tradition requires that when we invite a person to be a speaker, we actually respect our students and the professors by allowing them to make their own judgment and we don’t think it’s necessary before the speech is even given to come in with a series of claims and to attempt to provide a vaccination of sorts to our faculty and students.”

Amen. Undoubtedly, we all agree with the substance of Bollinger's comments--but what was the point? Why invite the little creep (or, to quote Bollinger, the “petty and cruel dictator”), if only to dress him down in front of a forum dedicated to civil exchange. What was the point?

One other question: if John Bolton had offered a similar introductory challenge and hypercritical assessment of Ahmadinejad prior to his distinguished lecturer speech--would Lee Bollinger have thought it appropriate?