"I entered the workforce three days after graduating from college and I've been working ever since," he said.

Though Mr. Lemann only made the official announcement about his departure this morning, the news leaked out last night in a  Bloomberg News report. Apparently, word of the dean's potential departure began to make its way around the j-school prior to the Bloomberg story.

"Rumors began to circulate yesterday. But even with a building full of journalists, nobody could confirm it," said Columbia Professor Michael Shapiro.

Mr. Shapiro confirmed the news when he read the Bloomberg story, but he doesn't know who the news outlets' source was.

"They obviously didn't get it from me," he said.

Though news of his exit generated substantial interest from news outlets and his colleagues, Mr. Lemann pointed out that the news isn't exactly shocking since media businesses and universities operate very differently.

"It's a bit of what we call a dog bites man story in journalism," said Mr. Lemann, who went on to explain that, although someone might stay in a powerful role indefinitely in a news organization, the same is not true in the academic world. "An institution is not set up to function when one person stays in leadership positions for years and years."

Columbia University President Lee Bollinger will lead the search for a new dean--another way that academia differs from the professional news business, where Mr. Lemann noted, a departing editor is usually expected to help chose and groom a successor.

All the while, Columbia has gone about the work of creating the most environmentally progressive neighborhood in the entire five boroughs, all from whole cloth.

Last week, the U.S. Green Building Council awarded Columbia’s new campus with LEED ND Platinum, the highest rating in the council's new-ish neighborhood development program. It is only the fifth project in the state to earn such recognition, and the first to achieve LEED ND Platinum. The designation means that the project has embraced the goals of accessibility, density, design and environmental efficiency, creating a model for future development.

"We like to think of it as a three-legged stool: environment, economy, equity," Jason Hercules, director of the LEED ND program, told The Observer. "Manhattanville excelled in all three."

LEED ratings have become a practical necessity for any new development in the city, ranging from university buildings to office towers to luxury condos. Even novel projects, like single-family homes, are pursuing this sheen of green, and thanks to Local Law 86, every new city building achieves the rating as well.

Now, to broaden its influence and further promote dense, sustainable growth throughout the country, the Green Building Council created the LEED ND program. Developers get points for everything ranging from transportation proximity to clean construction practices to the size of the blocks within the development—bigger ones tend to encourage out-of-scale superblocks.

Columbia's Manhattanville plan, created by SOM and Renzo Piano, entered the program five years ago, shortly after the rezoning was approved by the city. "Because of our serious commitment to sustainable design, we wanted this project to be seriously considered from the start," said Joseph Ienuso, senior vice president for facilities. "It’s a very rigorous process, we’ve been working on it five years."

The campus actually served as a pilot project for the council, helping it to refine exactly what criteria would be used to rate other neighborhoods in the program. "Theirs was a project that fit well with the goals of the program," Mr. Hercules said. "It was a shared learning experience." (This involvement had no bearing on Columbia’s receiving of the highest rating, Mr. Hercules said.)

“This is a milestone for Columbia not only because we are building a future in our home community in New York," university president Lee Bollinger said in a statement, "but because we are doing so with a commitment to the best urban planning principles and the highest quality architecture that reflect both the core values of city life and the fundamental need for a more sustainable society."

Manhattanville gets considerable points for many of the factors that make Manhattan and the rest of New York an inherently sustainable place to be, such as compact blocks, diversity of building types and proximity to robust transportation options. Still, Mr. Hercules said these do not guarantee a project scoring well or even making the cut. "Otherwise everything would be LEED certified," he said. "Somethings are easy in New York, others are hard."

Affordable housing is a big one. Critics have complained that there was not enough in the university's plan, and while it could not include any within the project, there is ample faculty housing (cutting down on commutes) as well as a $1 million affordable housing fund that will help seed local projects.

But those features are fairly standard. It is the more innovative commitments that pushed the Manhattanville campus to outperform others, such as a promise to build a minimum of 84 percent of its buildings to high sustainability standards (LEED Silver or above). An innovative below-grade service network, that keeps maintenance and delivery work off the streets, was given favorable marks. The possible inclusion of ferry service from the pier at 125th Street was another highlight, as were job training programs both within the campus and without.

"There’s a balance that needs to be made when new and larger projects come in," Mr. Hercules said, touching on the topic of gentrification that some locals feel remains unaddressed. "But the program considers all of these issues, and we feel this project made steps in the right direction."

One of the most unique features of the Manhattanville project, especially given its size and the fact it will be in progress for decades, is the commitment to clean construction practices. This involves everything from acoustical baffling added to extra-high construction fencing, which combined keep down noise and debris from spreading into the neighborhood, to using low sulfur fuel in the construction equipment. "One thing that’s pretty obvious when you’re at our site is you don’t see the puffs of black smoke you see at a lot of other construction site around the city," Mr. Ienuso said. The equipment is also washed down before leaving the site, so as not to track dust throughout the neighborhood.

"These things may seem small, but they add up," Mr. Ienuso said.

One person who had a hard time doing the math was State Senator Bill Perkins, who represents the Manhattanville neighborhood and has been an outspoken critic of the project. He said while the community might get some ancillary benefits from the LEED recognition, such as cleaner air and maybe a few jobs, it was primarily the university that would be benefiting, this despite the fact that it was community outcry that forced the university to embrace more sustainable practices.

"The neighborhood will be built to a better standard, but the community will not be here to enjoy it," Senator Perkins said. "It's almost like I picked the cotton but you get to wear the shirt."

Two things not factored into the Green Building Council's calculations were the case of eminent domain and the fatal accident this spring. On the issue of eminent domain, Mr. Hercules said it was "one factor among many."

"That’s something that’s somewhat outside the scope of our rating system," he continued. "Obviously, it’s important how a development is going to get control of their site. We obviously wouldn’t encourage anything that would disenfranchise anyone in the community. But once the developer has the property, it’s out roll to encourage a sustainable community."

This would not be the first time the council has overlooked such issues. The first project to ever receive LEED ND, back in 2009 was the city's plans for Willets Point—yet another eminent domain poster child.

mchaban [at] observer.com | @MC_NYC

Just a week after the firm unveiled its new designs for the Broad Foundation in LA, Columbia has just announced that the university has selected DS+R to design two new buildings at its new 17-acre Manhattanville campus. Both buildings will be an outpost of the business school, one of which will be named for renowned corporate raider Henry Kravis, who graduated from the school in 1969 and recently donated $100 million toward the project.

Columbia President Lee Bollinger said in a statement that the choice was in fitting with the aims of the university's new, if controversial, campus:

"They have achieved beautiful, important architectural successes that have been thoughtfully integrated into the surrounding urban fabric. This is the essence of what we are trying to create on Columbia's new, open campus--bringing together different areas of teaching and research, and enhancing the connections between the University and surrounding community."

This sounds not unlike something Charles Renfro, one of the firm's partners, told The Observer in a profile this week: "We're often in the business of taking institutions, which historically could draw a line between themselves and the place where they exist, and blurring the edges between public and private."

The firm will have its work cut out for it, as the university's Harlem neighbors are still wary of the new campus following an acrimonious takeover fight that involved eminent domain and a legal challenge that nearly made it to the Supreme Court.

Perhaps Columbia--long a patron of architecture, it should be noted--is hoping to smooth out some of the bumps with some dynamic designs. In addition to DS+R, Renzo Piano and SOM have been at work on the Manhattanville campus from the beginning.

The new building is part of the 30-year project's first phase, which means they will likely be built sometime in the next five to ten years. A timeline for the designs has not yet been set according to a Columbia spokesperson.

Correction: A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that only one of the two DS+R-designed buildings would be for the business shool. Both are.

mchaban [at] observer.com | @mc_nyo

Apparently the former law prof found himself nonetheless unprepared for the neighborhood's litigious response to the 17-acre project stretching from East 125th to East 133rd Street. "I didn't think it would take quite this long," said Mr. Bollinger, who's apparently now vetting the possibility that the project won't be complete until 2020.

Thanks to a ruling in June saying the school can invoke eminent domain to seize the land it needs, Columbia will break ground on the first of many new buildings this fall. Not that it had been waiting anyway (demolition of the first of 20 buildings began in January). 

In perhaps the most surprising turn of events, the community now seems on board, according to another article in Crain's. "We're ready to turn the page with Columbia," said Larry English, incoming chairman of Community Board 9, which rejected the master plan in 2006. Now Columbia has pledged to provide $76 million in direct community benefits. "They've shown a willingness to work with us and address our concerns," Mr. English says.

lkusisto@observer.com

From my perspective it was a wonderful speech. I felt the entire country exhale and breathe a sigh of relief. Here was a voice that over these past two years many of us had come to count on; possessed by a man with near perfect political pitch.  The main message was responsibility and stewardship. He called on all of us to leave behind the childish pettiness of partisan politics and remember that we are a unique community, formed from every part of the planet. As technology shrinks the size of our world and creates a global, interconnected economy and society, he noted that America's diversity got us there first and we have a responsibility to lead.

Of course as in any piece of great pubic oratory there was something for everyone. For me, he said:

• "...each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.
• "Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America."
• "We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. All this we will do."
• "What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them- that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works"

And finally:

• "We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace."

I was not the only one thrilled by President Obama's message,  I heard Conservative pundit, Pat Buchanan, laud our new President in his call for a return to: "...those values upon which our success depends - honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths."

Our new President makes you want to help him and wish him well. I have never seen anything like the flood of support and good will that he has enjoyed these last few days. It was amazing to see and could not be better timed.

Of course inauguration day is more than words, it is also symbols. The most important of these symbols is the peaceful transfer of power represented by past Presidents and Vice Presidents joining together and the great tradition of the outgoing President seated on the podium with the new President. The size of the crowd on the Capital mall and at viewing parties from coast to coast was a thrilling final act of this great pageant of democracy. On the Columbia campus, our President, Lee Bollinger hosted thousands of students, faculty and neighbors in an outdoor viewing of the ceremonies.

To inaugurate is to begin. It is more than a little scary to think of the challenges we face. The sustainability of this fragile blue island in the vacuum of space, the violence of the Mideast, the dire poverty in Africa and the economic crisis here at home. The inauguration of this President was an event of enormous affirmation and, one of unity and inclusion. President Obama referred to his own story and as he often does, used it to demonstrate how much is possible here in America.   In concluding he observed that assuming the Presidency was "a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant".  This is the promise and potential of America. While watching the ceremony and listening to Aretha sing at the start and Dr. King's colleague Rev. Joseph E. Lowery's benediction at the ceremony's end, I felt like I was dreaming- or watching an improbably sentimental and sappy movie.

But it all was real. Each of us now, in our own way must now participate in the great national renewal that President Obama spoke of on the Capital steps. January 20^th was a very moving day that we will need to remember and draw on during the difficult days that are surely ahead.

At the conference, Mayor Bloomberg linked the food issue to what he considers to be his administration's most important achievement - increased life expectancy for the people who live here. That figure is now greater than the average longevity of the U.S. population as a whole, and "if that's not the purpose of government, I don't know what is," said the mayor.

Speaking after Father d'Escoto, Bloomberg said the City will continue its agenda of making New York a healthier city and a better place.

He touched on the administration's anti-smoking campaign, which four years from the time of its implementation in 2002 had reduced the number of smokers by 240,000. The City's smoking rate for 2006 was the lowest on record at 17.5%, lower than all but five US states - California, Washington, Idaho, Utah and Connecticut, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That achievement demonstrates that New York City can play a leadership role and serve as a model for other cities as they push for change.

"New York is still the city people look to for so many trends, and we need to keep focusing on these things," Bloomberg said, referring to the City's newest battles on calories, trans-fat and the sodium content in packaged food products.

As part of its drive to create a healthy, happy city, the Mayor's Office has three goals:

• Get city agencies to abide by high nutrition standards that include lowering salt and calorie contents and supplying more high-fiber meals;
• Make healthy food more affordable; and
• Bring healthier food to low-income neighborhoods.

Each year New York City schools serve 225 million meals, more than any other US agency other than the Defense Department. The challenge, Bloomberg noted, is getting people to eat the healthy food provided. In other places getting people to eat healthy means increasing access to nutritious food. More than ¼ of all Harlem residents are obese, a health problem that continues to get worse even as the city become more environmentally friendly, Bloomberg noted.

The city is pushing bodegas and other local grocery shops to stock more fruits, vegetables and low-fat milk and dairy products. It has also extended a program that offers free in-class breakfast to students.

"Even in difficult financial times New Yorkers are living longer, healthier lives," Bloomberg said during his closing remarks. "We're not going to walk away from our opportunity to invest in the future, whatever the cost."

Bloomberg's comments echoed those of Father d'Escoto, who attributed the current food crisis to unsustainable government policies. The UN president called the fact that so many people now suffer from hunger and malnutrition "downright sinful," suggesting a need to move beyond "monocultural homogeneity" in food production to biodiversity. "A politics of food needs to be rooted in the local and communal," he said. "We must put people first, and listen to the voices of those most affected by poverty and hunger."

A study recently released by the UNEP stated that organic farming can deliver increased yields thought to be the preserve of industrial farming, an important finding given that current methods of production are no longer sustainable. "We need a multi-functional approach to food production that has a concern for the poor, the Earth and our communities," d'Escoto said.

In later breakout sessions Joel Berg, executive director of the New York City Coalition Against Hunger, took up the issue of food charity, referring to a November 19 news bulletin that Wal-Mart will begin giving more than 90 million pounds of fresh food annually to the nation's largest nonprofit organization addressing hunger, Feeding America.

"Charity alone will not solve the problem," said the author of All You Can Eat, a book on US hunger, obesity and poverty, noting a 40 percent increase in the federal food safety net would be needed if we hoped to end all hunger in the United States. The challenge of dealing with hunger is great. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the number of Americans who couldn't afford a full and stable supply of food rose by 700,000 in 2007. Even before the economic slowdown, more than 36 million Americans - including 12 million children - were considered "food-insecure" by the U.S. government.

Berg and the panel speaking on the urban food agenda addressed problems with food stamps, school meals and increasing community coordination. The Director of Special Projects for the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1500, Pat Purcell, went straight to the point: "Good food, good jobs and good health are the building blocks of every community."

As winter approaches and the economy continues to slip, the danger is that more people will go hungry. This is certainly a global issue, and the end of world hunger is a constant mission of my Earth Institute colleagues Jeff Sachs, Pedro Sanchez and Cheryl Palm. They are working every day to help stimulate a "green revolution" in African agriculture. Here in the United States, we need no agricultural revolution. There is more than enough food for everyone. It is disgusting and morally repulsive that anyone in this nation should ever go to sleep hungry.

This is the season when those of us who still have a little money in the bank need to think about how much to give to charity. I know we are all considering reducing the gifts we give each other. That makes sense. But let's not be stingy to those in need. As we sit down to Thanksgiving dinner this year let's demonstrate our thanks-by continuing our giving. And let's try to remember that all the non-profits and charities we gave to last year will need even more help this holiday season.

Somehow, months or even years later, Harlem, or at least a vocal portion of it, is still not convinced. At a Dec. 12 City Council hearing, Mr. Bollinger drew a groan from the audience when he posited that there existed “a sense that we have established trust between Columbia University and the surrounding neighborhood”—a groan that was loud enough to draw gaveling and an admonishment from the City Council member chairing the meeting.

The opposition may not matter in the end: The City Council was expected to ratify on Dec. 19 or, at the latest, by mid-January, with just a few symbolic "nay" votes, the rezoning that would make the 17-acre campus in West Harlem possible.

But why, if the university spent all this time—not to mention money—trying to reach out to Harlem, do so many people feel that Columbia has not been listening?

Early on, Mr. Bollinger spoke of the need to overcome the town-gown tensions of the past, and several instruments were set up to forge a cooperative relationship. Community advisory meetings were held and a turning point in the relationship was promised.

“I think now I was incredibly naïve in thinking that we could work together on this,” said Jordi Reyes-Montblanc, the chairman of the local community board. “They did nothing to actually change their plan when we raised objections to it.”

A pastor of a West Harlem church on the edge of the expansion zone, the Rev. Earl Kooperkamp of St. Mary’s Episcopal, was more moderate in his appraisal, though nonetheless skeptical.

“Columbia has resources and a good vision, and that’s a good thing,” he said. “But all too often there has been a dialogue to the deaf. I’m not sure Columbia has been hearing it.”

To some extent, any plan to build seven million square feet of anything anywhere would run into resistance. The transformation of the proposed site—most of it between Broadway and 12th Avenue from 125th to 133rd streets—would be total. A low-slung manufacturing area with dissolving sidewalks is about to be turned into a new-fangled campus with gleaming 25-story buildings. Just two or three historic buildings are to be preserved under Columbia’s plan. The current residents would be moved, somehow with their consent.

From Columbia’s perspective, the move would be historic, comparable to the decision to move to Morningside Heights over 100 years ago. The new campus would address a severe space deficit that Columbia says it suffers compared to other top schools, and add enough floor area to grow for another 30 years.

But in this case, Columbia’s history with the community, the nature of the opposition it faced and the awkwardness with which it stated its case conspired to make the expansion a particularly difficult sell.

It was clear from public hearings that the memory of the university’s attempt to build a gym in Morningside Park lives on strongly, even though it happened almost 40 years ago. “Don’t trust Columbia University,” Councilman Charles Barron, an East New York Democrat, proclaimed at last week’s City Council meeting. “History has shown that they cannot be trusted.”

On top of that, Harlem’s well-organized tenants groups, already upset about gentrification that it could not control, saw in Columbia an enemy it could recognize and fight. They launched a no-holds-barred assault on the plan, booing Mr. Bollinger, and even former Mayor David Dinkins, a Columbia professor, when they spoke in support of the expansion at a public hearing in August.

The opposition may have turned off political leaders, but it energized its base with a clear message: Columbia was an outsider eating up Harlem. The university tried to defuse this argument by pledging that it would not seek to use eminent domain to displace residents, only businesses. Yet the distinction was publicized only late in the game, and it did not do anything to temper the objections of two commercial property owners who did not want to sell to Columbia. One, Nick Sprayregen, hired a lawyer and publicist to fight it. The other, Anne Whitman, supported an opposition group, the Coalition to Preserve Community, by contributing money to pay for photocopies and the like, according to Tom DeMott, a founder of the CPC.

Columbia, on the other hand, seemed to be spreading several messages. One was that it was misunderstood. Mr. Bollinger, for instance, told The Observer in January that the relationship with Harlem was “quite positive, much better than it was, and not as appreciated as it ought to be.” He went so far as to say about surrounding residents, “Their lives will be very significantly improved by Columbia’s presence. If I didn’t believe that, I would not have reached the decision to go there.”

Meanwhile, other officials and university brochures tried to play up how much the school already was doing for Harlem by advertising its community health services, a legal aid clinic and the fact that 30 percent of its workforce lived in Upper Manhattan. They trumpeted a “Columbia-assisted” public high school that would be located on the new campus—although, the university’s senior executive vice president, Robert Kasdin, said last week that Columbia is not paying for the construction of the school, just the property on which it will stand.

At the same time, when Columbia tried to work with Harlem, that cooperation occasionally bit back. The school incorporated suggestions it heard from a series of public meetings four years ago into the design of the expansion: ground-floor retail, an absence of gates, and green space, all intended to open up the proposed campus in a way that the current 116th Street one is not. Yet those elements were almost taken for granted by the time the proposal made the rounds of the community board.

What is more, Columbia agreed early on to negotiate a “community benefits agreement” under which the university would promise job-training programs and support for affordable housing. But in pledging to negotiate with only one organization that claimed to represent the community, it had little choice but to shut down discussions with others—one of whom, the Rev. Calvin O. Butts III, the prominent pastor of Abyssinian Baptist Church, complained publicly about the shut-down on cable television. (At the same time, however, Columbia went ahead with separate negotiations with Manhattan Borough President Scott M. Stringer when it was his turn to weigh in on the proposal. He endorsed it.)

Perhaps the biggest complaint among dissenters was Columbia’s reaction to the local community board’s 32-2 vote against the expansion in August. The board attached 10 conditions that it wanted changed, ranging from forswearing eminent domain to a higher standard of environmental design than what the university has committed to. While Columbia has made a few gestures to address a couple of these items—such as building more than 800 apartments on the new campus to house university affiliates—it has so far stayed silent on others, such as landmarking historic buildings in the footprint.

“I think Columbia was probably even more arrogant than Forest City Ratner,” said Ron Shiffman, a Pratt Institute professor who acted as a consultant to the community board, referring to the developer of Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn. “They completely disregarded all of the modifications that the community board suggested.”

Last week, Columbia took a potentially huge step to reduce the need for eminent domain when it began negotiating with Mr. Sprayregen, owner of Tuck-It-Away Self-Storage, to trade properties instead of seizing them. But it remains to be seen whether those negotiations continue after the City Council vote, or were merely a way to look cooperative.

THE UNIVERSITY SEEMED to make it easier for those opposed to it by rolling out its plans early; taking a long time to get its paperwork finished; and only belatedly lining up supporters who would be willing to take to the mike at public hearings. It hired former David Dinkins aide Bill Lynch as far back as last December to form a coalition, although it took until this August for the group to go public. The Coalition for the Future of Manhattanville now lists 20 groups or individuals, some of them quite prominent—like Hazel Dukes, the president of the New York State conference of the N.A.A.C.P.—yet the very manufactured characteristic of this coalition has given die-hard opponents another reason to grumble.

La-Verna Fountain, a Columbia spokeswoman, questions the depth of the community opposition.

“I think it is interesting that when people say ‘community,’ they paint it with very broad strokes,” she told The Observer. “There are certainly very strong, viable voices that are very much in support of this.”

Certainly, among the strongest voices are the ones who are voting and making decisions on this matter. No matter how hard Columbia found it to convert certain elements of the community, it reached out early to the most prominent elected officials and won their support, among them Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Congressman Charles Rangel. City Council members were attracted to the promise of 6,000 new jobs and a substantial contribution to an affordable housing fund.

But Columbia wasn’t able to convince everybody.

That outcome had much less to do with the remarks of the Iranian leader than with the contribution of Columbia president Lee Bollinger.

Mr. Bollinger introduced Mr. Ahmadinejad by both excoriating him and defending the right of the university to invite him to speak.

In framing the event in that way, Mr. Bollinger might even have taught Mr. Ahmadinejad—and the fiercest American opponents of the Iranian president’s visit—something about the real meaning of free speech, and the responsibilities it entails.

Mr. Bollinger’s introductory onslaught was of such bluntness that it drew gales of applause from the hall and appreciative gasps from the hundreds of students arrayed in the afternoon sunshine in front of a large video screen in the center of the Columbia campus.

“You exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator,” Mr. Bollinger told Mr. Ahmadinejad. The Columbia president was also at pains to point out that the university’s right “to listen to ideas” did not “in any way imply endorsement of those ideas.”

He went on to note that Amnesty International had reported that around 210 people have been executed in Iran this year to date, including at least two children.

Turning his attention to Mr. Ahmadinejad’s penchant for Holocaust denial, Mr. Bollinger told the Iranian leader that this “makes you ridiculous” and that his past comments on the issue were “absurd."

Perhaps the biggest audience reaction followed this blunt assertion by Mr. Bollinger to his guest: “I doubt you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions.”

Some will no doubt suggest Mr. Bollinger’s remarks were rude, while others will argue that they were nonsensical, given the university’s decision to invite Mr. Ahmadinejad in the first place.

Mr. Ahmadinejad himself was clearly in the first camp. Complaining about “this political statement against me”, he mentioned the Iranian custom of treating guests with respect a number of times during his address.

Mr. Ahmadinejad also added, “We [in Iran] respect students and allow them to come to their own judgment. We don’t think it is necessary to provide a vaccination of some sort.”

But that comment mischaracterized Mr. Bollinger’s remarks. His introduction transformed the event into one in which Mr. Ahmadinejad was called to defend his positions rather than merely being given a platform from which to air them without opposition.

Mr. Bollinger’s remarks were less a “vaccination” than a challenge—and one which Mr. Ahmadinejad notably failed to meet.

Most striking of all, the Iranian president contrived to throw away any gravitas he may have had with a straight-faced assertion that there are no gay people in Iran.

“In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals, unlike in your country,” he said through a translator. “We do not have this phenomenon. I don’t know who told you that we do have it.”

That comment was met with laughter both inside the hall and outside, and was also the remark most often cited by protestors and other students in the aftermath.

“I really appreciated that he made that comment,” said Emily Haney-Caron, a psychology major and modern Jewish studies student. “I thought it destroyed his credibility in relation to everything else, including the Jewish issue, which might be a bit less familiar to other people.”

The Iranian president didn’t exactly convince on the Jewish issue either, however. Asked about Holocaust denial, he instead sought to frame the topic as one of academic freedom.

Referring to the Holocaust as a “present reality” he asked, “Why is there not research that can approach it from different perspectives? There are researchers who want to approach it from a different perspective – why are they sent to prison?”

At another point, Mr. Ahmadinejad asserted, “I am trying to uphold the rights of European scholars.”

Perhaps he should have been aware that casting himself as a stout defender of Holocaust deniers was unlikely to win him many friends.

Mr. Ahmadinejad met with a somewhat warmer reception when he complained about superpowers aiming to control access to nuclear technology and when he sought to uncouple the issue of Palestine from the suffering of the Jewish people.

“If [the Holocaust] is a reality, we still need to question whether the Palestinian people should be paying the price for it. The Palestinian people did not commit any crime,” he said.

The fact that these remarks were met with a smattering of applause said a lot about the audience’s willingness, at least, to listen.

The event itself underlined that extending freedom of speech even to those whom we detest need not be an exercise in naiveté. Instead, the holes and deficiencies in Mr. Ahmadinejad’s arguments were thoroughly exposed on Monday afternoon.

And there was another welcome consequence. Mr. Bollinger, in his introduction, challenged Mr. Ahmadinejad to let Columbia students and faculty visit an Iranian university and speak in the same spirit of freedom that had been offered to him.

Somewhat unexpectedly, Mr. Ahmadinejad rose to the challenge. “You are officially invited,” he said at the end of his speech.

The Iranian president might yet learn something about freedom after all.

Opponents and supporters of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s right to speak stood check by jowl on the steps of Columbia’s library as they waited for his scheduled 1:30 address, as a crowd of several hundred Columbia students gathered before a large truck-mounted video screen.

An NYPD helicopter hovered overhead.

Eitan Ben David, wearing a Hillel t-shirt bearing the Edmund Burke quote, “All that is required for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,” said, “We should be marginalizing him, we should be isolating him.”

Mr. Ben David, a philosophy student, added, “I was shocked that they would go about doing this.”

Nearby, Jasmine Alagheband, an English major of Iranian descent who was wearing a placard expressing support for the Iranian people, said, “I feel we should get to know the Iranian people better.”

"I feel it is produced an atmosphere of hate within the environment of the campus,” she said.

During the speech itself, Mr. Ahmadinejad gave evasive answers to questions about the state of Israel and the Holocaust, but caused the biggest stir of all by denying that there were any gay people in Iran.

“In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals, unlike in your country,” he said, through a translator. “We do not have this phenomenon. I don’t know who told you that we do have it.”

Mr. Ahmadinejad, at one point, sounded vaguely conciliatory: “We love all nations, we are friends with the Jewish people,” he said.

But he referred to the Holocaust only as “a present reality.”

He went on to offer an apparent defense of Holocaust deniers in Europe, asking, “Why is there not research that can approach it from different perspectives? There are researchers who want to approach it from a different perspective? Why are they sent to prison?”

The event was also marked by sharp criticism of Mr. Ahmadinejad by Columbia University president Lee Bollinger.

In his introductory remarks, Mr. Bollinger told the Iranian president, “You exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator.”

Mr. Bollinger further charged that Mr. Ahmadinejad’s denial of the Holocaust made him “ridiculous” and asked, “Will you cease this outrage?”

In closing his speech the Columbia president said, “I feel all the weight of the modern world yearning to express its revulsion at what you stand for.”

The audience applauded loudly.

Mr. Ahmadinejad did not take kindly to the remarks, saying at the outset of his speech, “I want to complain about this political statement against me.” He continued: “We [in Iran] respect students and allow them to come to their own judgment. We don’t think it is necessary to provide a vaccination of some sort.”

He also noted on several occasions during his speech that in Iran, “it is a tradition to respect those who are invited as guests.”

Mr. Ahmadinejad also sought to focus upon the Palestinian question. Referring to the Holocaust once more, he said, “If it is a reality, we still need to question whether the Palestinian people should be paying the price for it. The Palestinian people did not commit any crime.”

He also referred to the issue of Palestine as “an old wound” in the Middle East.

With regard to Iran’s nuclear program, Mr. Ahmadinejad insisted, “Iran’s activities are peaceful.”
He added: “How is it that you have the right [to develop nuclear technology] but we can’t have it?”

Mr. Ahmadinejad’s speech was received a mixed, if generally polite, reception. His remarks on Palestine were received with a smattering of clapping. When he talked about the Holocaust, there was silence. And when he made his comments on homosexuals, the audience laughed.

Surely, two of the most memorable minutes of Mr. Bollinger's life.