LAST THURSDAY, former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami to speak at the University. The debate leading up to his speech was hollow. Some -- including this newspaper -- argued that anyone with something provocative to say ought to be invited to speak, since free speech is part of Thomas Jefferson's legacy. On the other hand, many were offended that this speaker was the former leader of a country that denies the Holocaust and is pursuing nuclear weapons.
Both sides, however, miss the point. There is a huge difference between supporting freedom of speech and bending over backwards to bring a speaker. The American tradition, ever since the Supreme Court ruled schools can censor newspapers they fund in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, has been that schools cannot and ought not prevent the free expression of ideas, but they fall under no obligation whatsoever to promote actively the exercise of this right. In other words, the University need not bring speakers such as Khatami to ensure freedom of speech; this is especially true when a speaker claiming to be a reformer has a human rights record that speaks to the opposite of these ideals.
Khatami was president of Iran from 1997 until 2005 and is generally hailed a reformist. The department of religious studies proudly had him speak in the Rotunda about the role of religion in society. He argued that all people on earth could agree on a few fundamentals. The first fundamental he identified was the importance of security today. Khatami then said that unless everyone is secure, no one is secure. He eventually concluding that everyone must be guaranteed security and due justice in order to "bring us back to earth from hell." The best way to do this, he said, was through multinational, peaceable organizations such as the United Nations. All of this sounds wonderful, and the press will probably write glowing articles about this supposed Iranian liberalizer, but it's nothing more than an exercise in hypocrisy.
Under Khatami's rule, Iran was officially considered the top state sponsor of terrorism by the U.S. State Department. Prior to being elected president, Khatami served as minister of culture and Islamic guidance. In this capacity, he helped set up franchise terrorist groups -- such as Hezbollah -- in many neighboring states in order to foster regional instability and punish them for rejecting militant Islam. He oversaw the creation of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia -- both Hezbollah of Lebanon and Saudi Arabia directly attacked U.S. soldiers. In fact during his remarks, Khatami said that "the people of Iran love Hezbollah and Hezbollah loves the people of Iran." During the recent conflict in Lebanon he hailed Hezbollah as "a shining sun that illuminates and warms the hearts of all Muslims." I suspect the Lebanese used as human shields would disagree, but a man indirectly responsible for the death of U.S. Marines and gleefully praising a terrorist organization is no reformist liberal.
A policy of sponsoring terrorism makes a jail cell in Geneva for war crimes a more legitimate place for Khatami than the Rotunda, but his foreign policies are still not as bad as his domestic policies. A student in the audience asked Khatami what he thought about current Iranian President Ahmadinejad's comments that liberal and secular professors have no place in universities. Khatami tried his best to dodge the question in his long, roundabout reply. He said that was "how democracy works" in that you can get policies not everyone likes; in an attempt to bolster his own image, he also mentioned his great respect for professors. But if Khatami truly values liberal democracy, why could he not give a clear answer condemning Ahmadinejad's policy and arguing for academic freedom? The truth is that under his presidency, there was no respect for either political or academic freedom. In 1999, Iranian government officials attacked student protesters at Tehran University; several were killed while scores more were arrested and tortured. In 1998, Khatami's intelligence agents murdered Darioush and Parvaneh Forouhar, two liberal opposition leaders. Reporters without Borders, an international NGO, called Khatami's Iran "the biggest prison for journalists in the Middle East."
The setup of this event was very strange -- attendance was restricted to 140 by invitation only. All questions had to be approved in advance and the University purposely did little to publicize the event. These restrictive measures make it clear that both Khatami and the University were not actually interested in promoting freedom of speech; they just wanted to prevent tough questions and ensure there was not enough time to organize a protest. Such insidious motives have no place in a university setting. Thomas Jefferson would certainly not approve.
Josh Levy's column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at jlevy@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
BURSTEIN: Federal workforce cuts target Virginia — and Youngkin’s response falls short
By Carly Burstein | 4 days agoForcing employees to choose between uprooting their families or losing their livelihoods is not just callous — it is economically reckless.
HUYNH: Virginia’s proposed ‘whippets’ law is laughable
By Viet Huynh | 5 days agoAs people continue to be harmed by nitrous oxide abuse, Virginians will see this new law as the ineffective, ultimately harmful policy that it is.
EDITORIAL: We can demand more of our university presidents
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoWe hope for greater transparency because for the principles of solidarity in this statement to be enacted and effective, stakeholders must be treated as partners in resistance.
