Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has recently raised countrywide controversy and protests for his appearances in the United States.

Ahmadinejad, who came to the United States this week to attend the United Nations General Assembly for the third time in three years, has been slandered in the United States and elsewhere for allegedly calling for Israel to be wiped off the map and his thoughts of the Holocaust as a “myth.”

Ahmadinejad was denied access to the site of the former World Trade Center by New York City authorities upon his arrival to the states, even though he claimed his only intentions were to pay his respects to the lost lives of American citizens.

During Ahmadinejad’s speech at Columbia University in New York City on Monday, he spoke on a variety of topics, including nuclear weapons rights and history and justice of Iran, amid protests from hundreds of students and locals.

At the United Nations General Assembly, hosted in New York City on Tuesday, the Iranian president safeguarded his country’s right to hold nuclear weapons, calling it a peaceful nuclear program. This statement was met with confusion by other foreign and domestic leaders.

ISU students and professors reflected on Ahmadinejad’s presence in the United States, as well as his underlying premise for being vocal across the country.

Nick Pendar, assistant professor of English and advisor for the Iranian Students’ and Scholars’ Association, said he was not surprised Ahmadinejad was not allowed to visit the site at Ground Zero, and he said the United States made a prudent decision considering the tension on both sides.

“He may have scored some points with his supporters back in Iran, but I still don’t think this was the right time for such a gesture,” he said. “There is a good chance he would have said something insensitive to cause more turmoil.”

Alireza Kabirian, graduate student in industrial and manufacturing systems and treasurer for the Iranian Students’ and Scholars’ Association, said he would have let Ahmadinejad visit.

Kabirian said by having his request rejected, Ahmadinejad gained popularity in the Middle East because Iranian televised coverage showed headlines criticizing Americans for not allowing him to pay his respects, thus painting a negative picture of the freedoms of foreigners in the U.S.

“Rejecting his request this way and commenting on it in the media, as both Republican and Democratic presidential candidates did, has served to add to the popularity of Ahmadinejad in the Middle East and [the] Muslim world,” Kabirian said.

In regard to his visit at Columbia, Pendar said he applauded the university for allowing such a controversial speaker to be heard and hopes opportunities for such direct dialogues continues, possibly even at Iowa State.

“I personally don’t agree with much of what Mr. Ahmadinejad said. However, I believe it is a good idea to let him be heard so that people can make their own decisions about him,” he said.

Kabirian agreed with Pendar, but said the forum could have been better organized, allowing for a better impression of Americans in the nation of Iran.

“[Lee] Bollinger, president of Columbia University, didn’t show respect for his invited guest. This causes a very bad impression about hospitality of Americans in the mind of Iranians,” he said.

Kabirian also said the questions asked at the forum were not challenging enough for the Iranian president.

“The questions that were asked were not challenging because Ahmadinejad expected those questions and was ready to answer. There are much better questions about human rights violations in Iran and controversial comments Ahmadinejad has made that could have been asked,” Kabirian said.

Steffen Schmidt, university professor of political science and alumnus of Columbia said the school’s choice to host a highly controversial speaker is not something new. He remembers attending Columbia and being exposed to many notorious speakers during the Vietnam War.

Schmidt said Ahmadinejad’s visit publicized the Iranian president even more, helping him to gain support at home. Although he wasn’t surprised the Iranian president was allowed to speak, he wonders if other highly controversial members of society would get that chance.

“I wonder if Columbia would invite a Ku Klux Klan leader or an anti-gay person to speak. Would they be OK with that?” he said.

Schmidt did feel there was a lot to gain by allowing Ahmadinejad to speak in the United States.

“In a way, everyone probably got something out of it,” he said. “People who wanted to disagree and show it were able to do that. And others got to see signs and listen, which they wouldn’t have been able to do if he never came.”