The School of International and Public Affairs was alive with excitement and anticipation last week when it was announced that Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, would be coming to speak at the university. It seemed that many people, whatever they thought of Ahmedinejad’s often inflammatory rhetoric, looked forward to the opportunity to hear him speak uncensored, unedited, and in the flesh.

It was a bold move on the part of the administration, but one that seemed to emphasize the magnitude of open academic discourse and free speech. Just as praiseworthy were those individuals who chose to protest the event. I have lived and worked in countries where protestors are often persecuted and subjected to government crackdowns – and so to see Americans of all ages seize this constitutional liberty is personally rewarding.

I met an Israeli tourist who spent the entirety of last weekend protesting outside Columbia's main gates instead of sightseeing because he was so appalled by the news of Ahmedinejad's visit. I understand why people were infuriated by the news of Ahmedinejad’s visit to Columbia. I respect that. I certainly do not agree with many things he says, but I also do not think he, as an individual, is as much of a threat as many Western governments make him out to be. In other words, he is not an influential decision maker in Iran.

Controversy – when it is open to debate - is the primary mechanism forcing societies to evolve and weed out old, unprogressive thoughts and ideas. The human mind, and the rights and freedom with which it is imbued, atrophy like muscles if not exercised. If societies saw eye-to-eye on everything, there’s no telling where we would be. Slavery might still be legal in America. Apartheid might still be the rule of law in South Africa. There might still be a Cold War.

Ahmedinejad’s speech at Columbia on Monday afternoon was this community’s way of showing the world that we can agree to disagree. The next step is ostensibly to come to some sort of consensus. In the case of Iran and the United States, that is probably a ways away. That said, the American public’s trust in politics and government is on a sharp decline. A forum such as that administered by Columbia this week gives people the chance to formulate opinions based on their own exposure and assessment, not information which has been filtered through government, intelligence and the media.

Ahmedinejad spoke with confidence and charisma. He faced tough – albeit legitimate – questions from the audience and an even tougher reception by Columbia’s President. Often he gave a run-around, responding to questions with counter-questions. Some of his comments – namely his remark that there are no homosexuals in Iran – were flat out absurd. But then there were also moments when his comments caused many in the audience to raise their eyebrows and see things in a different light.

It does not matter whether my fellow Columbians view Ahmedinejad as a saint or Satan. The fact that we had the opportunity to share these views – and that Ahmedinejad shared his views with us – brought us, if only for a moment, a few steps closer to peace.