I'm not a fan of Ahmadinejad by any means, but does inviting him to speak under the guise of free speech and then
ambushing him in your introduction really invite any true discourse to happen? What was the point of that? Certainly there are some ideas that need to be challenged, but is insulting someone before they speak the way to go? One could use the trapped, wounded animal metaphor here, but one won't.
I don't agree with him, but c'mon folks, if you're interested in free speech, then let's have the speech before we have the verdict. He's obviously an incendiary figure on purpose, and I don't trust him as far as I can throw him, but I think it's a bad move on Lee Bolinger's part as an administrator. Is he planning on running for something and we didn't know? Appeasing his donors? If, in theory, an institution of higher learning is allowing people to learn how to think and discern, then he did just the opposite.
Like I said, I don't like wjhat Ahmadinejad says either (in fact, I think he's full of sh**), but stooping to the level of a stumping pol just put him on the defensive and made the whole thing an exercise in slaughter and self-congratulation. Sure we like to cheer for Bollinger telling the big bad leader what he thinks of him, but where exactly does that lead us?