In the aftermath of President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s campus visit, I certainly expected to read criticisms of University President Lee Bollinger and his handling of various aspects of the planning and execution of Monday’s event. However, I was unprepared for criticism that condemned Bollinger’s introductory critique of Ahmadinejad as too harsh.
That is exactly the perspective presented by six School of International and Public Affairs students in Tuesday’s Spectator (“Bollinger’s Belligerence,” Sept. 25). But their argument ignores basic facts about the events leading up to Monday, and it creates an erroneous and dangerous litmus test for whether free speech has been accorded. Let us take a closer look.
To suggest that Bollinger’s hostile introduction was either posturing for the heavy media coverage or buckling to outside political pressure is to brush aside important facts about Bollinger’s vision of the invitation to Ahmadinejad. Bollinger was consistent in his approach to Ahmadinejad’s appearance. In his e-mail address to the Columbia community before the event, Bollinger wrote that it is “a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open the public forum to their voices.” According to Bollinger, the mere fact that we have invited Ahmadinejad to our campus does not necessitate respect for his views. The implication is that if we allow him to speak to us, we must make clear to everyone listening that this man is an abominable political figurehead for a brutal regime and that we must thoroughly challenge his views and actions. Moreover, this is consistent with another trope echoed by Bollinger throughout the week—the emphasis of this event is on our academic freedom and not on Ahmadinejad’s.
Similarly, equating last year’s event featuring Minuteman Project founder Jim Gilchrist with Monday’s Ahmadinejad speech ignores salient differences between the events. The aim of such a comparison is to present Bollinger’s apparent hypocrisy for condemning Mr. Ahmadinejad and defending Gilchrist’s right to free speech, but this effort again overlooks Bollinger’s remarkable consistency. In defending Gilchrist’s free speech, Bollinger was defending the right of student groups to invite speakers of their choosing and to not have those speakers be silenced. The condemnation of Ahmadinejad was fundamentally different as the University itself extended the invitation, thus allowing Bollinger to introduce the speech however he saw fit. But also, Bollinger did not prevent Ahmadinejad from saying anything. Thus Bollinger has in fact been internally consistent. He has always prioritized the academic freedom of students and has consistently allowed guests complete freedom of speech.
The most troubling proposition is the argument that because an invitation was extended to Ahmadinejad, we must be open to his views. This position must be refuted. We, as a university community and as members of a greater liberal democracy, have an obligation to resist figures and ideas that are antithetical to our values. It is not enough that we invite a despicable figure to speak unfettered, but we also have to “be open” to his views?
Nonsense. As Bollinger himself said in his introductory remarks, we in the academy “have a deep and almost single-minded commitment to pursue the truth.” We have heard too much of Ahmadinejad’s evil rhetoric, lies, and political posturing to be duped into “being open” to his views.
I am further disturbed that I have spent the better part of this commentary defending the president of this University when Ahmadinejad’s golden opportunity was only the result of Bollinger’s own colossal miscalculation. The linchpin of Bollinger’s invitation was the question and answer session to which Ahmedinejad opened himself at the end of his speech.
How did Bollinger’s vaunted Q&A turn out? Were students allowed to rise to microphones placed around the room, ask Ahmadinejad sharp questions, and follow up, as is standard in academic lectures? No. Students submitted questions on index cards that were to be read by a moderator. Did the moderator read the specific, smart, pointed questions written by students on the cards? No. SIPA’s Acting Dean John Coatsworth lumped whole groups of questions together, predictably leading to easy questions on broad topics. Ahmadinejad sidestepped most of these questions with little problem. Coatsworth inexplicably allowed Ahmadinejad to paint Holocaust denial as rigorous pursuit of further academic research.
In retrospect, it is hard to see Ahmadinejad’s speech as anything more than a glorified press conference. He got the powerful political gift of a speech at one of the most prestigious academic institutions in the country if not the world. Did we, the students, get anything worthy in return except Ahmadinejad’s repeated political dodges and insults to our intelligence?
Thus, Bollinger does deserve a measure of commendation for his erudite and pointed introductory remarks. He certainly understands the depth of Ahmadinejad’s threat to this country and to the world. But believing that Bollinger saved the day becomes a touch ironic when we remember that it was Bollinger’s single-minded crusade for so called “academic freedom” that landed us in this situation in the first place.
Dov Friedman is a Columbia College junior majoring in history.
