"given the sheer number of people in the world who are more important":

There are no other countries which the US is reasonably likely to carry out an airborne first strike on in the next, oh, twelve hours or so. And, while Ahmadinejad does not possess tremendous power in the Iranian system of government, he is the one they send to UN meetings; and there would likely have been some problems with inviting Supreme Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to speak at Columbia.

It's not a rude comment—it's much appreciated. I don't think heads of states are in a position to do much anything "sincerely"—there's a measure of political calculation behind even innocuous actions. But when, say, the president of France lays a wreath for 9/11 we have reason to believe that whatever instrumental or political value he receives in his home state for staging such an act is something that we wouldn't find disrespectful. But the ruling class in Iran is not sympathetic to our nation or our traumas. How would the photo-op operate in Iran? Very possibly in a demeaning or condescending way, regardless of how contrite Ahmadinejad himself is.

The invitation was issued by the graduate School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), not the CU president's office. SIPA constantly hosts foreign officials and activists who come and give talks. Then-SIPA dean Anderson invited Ahmadinejad because almost everyone gets invited. Within SIPA this invitation isn't unusual. And normally if the speaker is an immoral ass he or she will be challenged by students and teachers alike.

So, no one agrees with me that Ahmadinejad isn't an edifying voice vis-a-vis US conflict with Iran and there's more to gain from bringing in someone who is? Was this event good for anything for YouTube jokes? I listened to the thing over MP3 and learned nothing. May I note, for argument's sake, that I'd have the same academic-y objection to inviting President Bush to speak about the US conflict with Iran?