While Columbia University has received the bulk of the criticism, 60 Minutes acted no differently by interviewing Iran’s “President” Ahmadinejad. Both were wrong to do so.

There are those — including the administration at Columbia — who argue that it is appropriate for an academic institution to expose students to varying viewpoints – even those whose views are deemed offensive, and 60 Minutes can argue that it was doing its duty as a journalistic enterprise in obtaining information so that members of its audience can make up their minds.

Some people might even hold out hope that Ahmadinejad might modify his views if challenged with hard questions and facts that contradict his stated positions.

Let me first say that I would not go so far as to boycott 60 Minutes or call for a boycott of their advertisers for doing the interview. Nor would I go any further in protesting Columbia University’s decision than to try to convince them that they were wrong. That is because both organizations play by a set of rules that I adhere to. For each, the possibility exists of having a constructive dialogue where one or both opposing parties can learn from their opponents and might even change their views. That is not the case for Mr. Ahmadinejad and thus we come to the reason for my opposition to giving him a platform.

Ahmadinejad’s views are calculated. They are not the result of learning (take note Columbia), of the study of information and drawing conclusions based on rules of logic or science. You can’t change someone’s views when they’ve chosen to think a certain way about a topic in order to achieve a political objective.

I heard one local commentator continually call Ahmadinejad ‘crazy’ for stating that the Holocaust – the murder by the Nazis and their allies of six million Jews and others – never happened. The man is clearly not crazy in the sense that you might call someone crazy who claims to hear voices that tell him to kill the president. Ahmadinejad’s views are designed to appeal to an audience that wants to believe Israel is illegitimate and should be destroyed. You can’t change his views on the subject by producing factual evidence because he’s chosen to believe the way he does for personal gain. You have as much chance doing so as you would have of convincing Barry Bonds to give up the home run record because he once used steroids.

Further Ahmadinejad is not just another contestant in the game of statesmanship. He’s a sworn enemy of the United States who would rally the Muslim world to carry out jihads until Islam has achieved world domination. Remind you of someone else?

Comparing people to Adolph Hitler is in most cases a sign that the person has run out of logical arguments and that he hopes to win the debate by emotion. In this case, however, there’s an important real basis for the comparison. Ahmadinejad, like Hitler, would exploit democratic institutions in order to advance his anti-democratic agenda. If the West is willing to allow him to speak on their media (60 Minutes) and be on the stage of one of their institutions of higher learning, Ahmadinejad is only too happy to take advantage of the situation to show his supporters at home how powerful he truly is.

Recall that after Hitler took advantage of Germany’s electoral system to gain win the presidency in 1933, he quickly abolished those institutions that might have led to his removal from office, justifying the abolition of democratic institutions by blaming Germany’s Jews for its defeat in World War I.

Ahmadinejad is using his position as president of Iran to exert control over Iran’s government bureaucracy, through his control over the budget and by placing his people in key positions. He is also using the Revolutionary Guard – the group that took over the US Embassy in 1979 – the way Hitler used his followers – to create a climate where the young can be indoctrinated and where people are afraid to oppose him.

In a case where appearance wins out over substance, Ahmadinejad got what he wanted from his appearances on 60 Minutes and at Columbia. Those who invited him did not; worse they were used by someone who would never permit them the same opportunity were the situations reversed.