What are we doing here? Last week we invited one of the world’s most boorish characters to speak at one of our most prestigious universities, and then introduced him with an equally boorish ambush. What ever else can be said about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s appearance at Columbia, it was not one of Columbia’s prouder moments, or one of America’s. Nor was it an isolated incident. For forty years or more we have been substituting shouting matches for what should be civil discourse. We hear it every day in sound bites on the evening news. United States Senators regularly accuse each other of the worst sort of perfidy over even minor disagreements of policy. Presidents are routinely subjected to character assassination by people we might expect better behavior of. Talk of impeachment is the order of the day. Special prosecutors have become preferred mechanisms for resolving political disputes. Radio talk shows and op-ed pages are filled with intemperate diatribe. News is often little more than opinion masquerading as journalism. The blogs are particularly friendly to the worst invective.
One can make the case that it was ever thus and that bad as things are at least we’ve gotten past dueling pistols at dawn. But isn’t there a better way? Can’t we conduct public discourse with reason and persuasion rather than invective and spin? No one ever listens to an argument made too loudly. It’s no way to change anybody’s mind. Is there a way to fix this? I think there is. We can write to our elected officials and let them know we expect them to behave civilly. Those folks tend to be responsive to their constituents, or to leave office early if they aren’t. We can affect the conduct of our college administrators through our alumni associations. That works especially well if they are private as is Columbia, and public institutions are even more attentive to state legislators. Radio commentators and opinion writers usually send signals with their first few sentences. We can and should read or hear what they have to say even if we don’t agree, but if we don’t approve of their manner we should change stations or read something else. They don’t get paid if nobody pays attention, but if we approve or disapprove based solely on whether they support our particular positions we will never get anywhere.
More important, we can clean up our own acts. Most of us are guilty of too much heat at times with friends, loved ones, and strangers. We know it when it happens and feel bad about it but we too seldom make a concerted effort to do anything about it. We can change that behavior in ourselves. We can walk away from a confrontation when one is uncalled for. We can speak softly. We can hold our tongues and avoid the hurtful retort. When we do we will send a very powerful message to the one group that always takes notice, our children.
None of this is to say we should not speak out when something is wrong, but there is a proper time, place, and tone for it. I would not have asked Ahmadinejad to speak. His views are well known and I don’t think he has anything to contribute towards understanding or reconciliation. Offering another public forum for his bigotry served no useful purpose. Still, once the invitation was extended the dictates of polite society should have demanded a courteous host. Demonstrators outside on picket lines are one thing. Heckling an invited guest from the rostrum is quite another. Harsh words at the wrong time reflect badly on the speaker and if he or she holds a position of responsibility the reflection spreads. We should all be embarrassed for Columbia.
| 
