controversial monday in the city

One advantage of working for an affiliate of a very prestigious university is the access it affords you. Yesterday, the Columbia University campus was closed to anyone not associated with the college. Luckily for me, my ID allowed me to enter.
Normally one does not need an ID to walk through the Columbia campus. Of course, normally Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmandinejad is not scheduled to speak on campus. While the auditorium where he was speaking was closed to anyone who had not registered to attend, I learned that there were several locations on campus where one could watch the live video feed. So several of my co-workers and I decided to go watch the speech.
There is no point for me to write about what was said. The media has already provided what they believe to be the most essential sound bites. In fact, I'm hesitant to comment on the speech and "debate" at all. When you have something that is as controversial such as this, or more importantly personal, how can you comment without offending someone?
I had a friend who planned to protest this speech. As someone of the Jewish faith, it was offensive to him to allow Ahmandinejad a platform for questioning the Holocaust and suggesting "wiping Israel off the map." So what would he say about the fact that I attended the speech (even if I didn't technically attend)? Could even my actions be misconstrued as condoning Ahmandinejad's opinions and beliefs?
I take my chance with just a few reactions to the entire event:

• Columbia University President Lee Bollinger's comments were shocking at times. It seemed as if he was trying to justify his decision and respond to the controversy. It seemed inappropriate to open the forum with the hostility he created. He seemed to suggest that it was his duty to confront Ahmandinejad's "evil" on behalf of the University and even the United States.
  
• The first part of Ahmandinejad's speech was boring. He kept quoting scriptures and referring to religion and science and knowledge. It didn't make much sense.
  
• The speech got interesting when he acknowledged Bollinger's opening remarks. He seemed to get the purpose of this forum. Why didn't Bollinger? How can you find truth when you simply accuse not question? Where was diplomacy?
  
• There were a few times when the auditorium where I was sitting laughed at the remarks made by Ahmandinejad. If you read or watched the news, you know what they are. But my focus wasn't on what he was saying as much as why he was saying it. Again, I'm not saying I agree with him, but shouldn't we be asking the why? The same was true with Bollinger's opening remarks. I know what he said, but for me it is more important to know why.
• I guess in the end I was both impressed and distressed by President Bollinger's opening remarks. To outright challenge the political stances of the Iranian President to his face is pretty gutsy. However, to call a world leader names during the forum is just rude.
• To be truthful, I felt the same about President Ahmandinejad. I was impressed with his demeanor in spite of the very un-welcoming introduction. However, he seemed to evade some of the important questions about reports of human rights violations in Iran, his call for more research and documentation of the Holocaust, and his stance on Israel. But the man had a point- where is the free speech when you are told to give a yes or no answer?
• Finally, I have to wonder- how much was lost in translation?