Two recent controversial events — Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Sept. 24 speech at Columbia University and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s appointment as a “distinguished visiting fellow” at our own Hoover Institution — raise related questions about morality, free speech and academic freedom. Liberal professors and students on campus have started a petition opposing Rumsfeld’s appointment. Meanwhile, conservatives generally applauded the Hoover Institution’s appointment while strongly opposing Columbia’s decision to invite Ahmadinejad to speak on campus. Both groups cited “academic freedom,” but the hypocrisy is clear: politics was the driving factor.

Separating the two speakers is difficult — one would think that academic freedom would encompass the situations of both. This is not to say that Rumsfeld and Ahmadinejad are the same, or that their actions in the public forum can even be compared. One, however controversial, was appointed by the president to a high post in the Cabinet, the other is the Holocaust-denying leader of a dictatorship. In both cases, however, the respective university’s prestige and brand are on the line.

Not only is there a question of academic freedom, but, more specifically, the role of universities in promoting this academic freedom. Universities — large institutions with opinionated professors and students — invited these figures to campus. Columbia was demonized by Fox News and other conservative news outlets, while Stanford has been condemned by a group of liberal professors and scores of alumni. These reactions show that universities’ obligations to protect and encourage academic freedom comes at a great cost. In light of this cost, one must question how strong that obligation should be.

Ahmadinejad runs a country that is clearly a state sponsor of terrorism. He’s denied the Holocaust, and he consistently refers to the United States as “Great Satan.” During his visit to Columbia, he claimed there were no homosexuals in Iran, dismissing homosexuality as a Western “phenomenon.” Rumsfeld, while obviously not as inflammatory as Ahmadinejad, was roundly criticized during his tenure as Secretary of Defense by Republicans and Democrats alike, including a group of retired generals and Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Should either Columbia or Stanford have put their reputations on the line by sponsoring the presence of these figures on their campuses? While neither university endorses the actions of their respective guests, they are inevitably associated with these men. Consequently, this association can sully their reputations. Right-wing commentators made a fake, but legitimate-looking Web site for the “Columbia University School of Terrorism.” Any talk of “academic freedom” and “free speech” certainly pales in the face of such sharp rhetoric, and Columbia comes off looking much worse for it.

Universities are not selfless institutions devoted to providing a place for free speech. A university is an institution with its own interests and obligations. Accordingly, having highly controversial figures appear on campus inevitably leads to problems — universities’ overall mission of educating students might be impaired by the debate generated by inviting controversial speakers.

Stanford is one of the most prestigious universities in the world, known across all fields for academic excellence, but that reputation does not come easily. The University must maintain its reputation and attract top students and faculty. Some of them will inevitably be turned off by extremely divisive speakers. The prestige and excellence that Stanford is known for in the public sphere is limited, and must be exercised wisely. Universities can’t support every controversial speaker that comes their way.

Some tough choices will have to be made, and it’s unclear whether naming Rumsfeld a Hoover fellow will benefit the University in the long run. The deference to academic freedom, however virtuous, may not be worthwhile in light of the overall goal of the University.