Students Conflicted Over Bollinger’s Speech

In introducing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last month, University President Lee Bollinger followed up on his promise to open with “a series of sharp challenges” to the head of state’s policies, calling Ahmadinejad “a cruel and petty dictator.” Two weeks later, controversy persists, with the University divided over the strength of Bollinger’s condemnation.

Some have cited Bollinger’s failure to take a similarly powerful stance against other controversial figures that have spoken at the World Leaders Forum. They see this both as evidence of inequitable treatment toward the Iranian president and as a sign that the University President doesn’t care about certain segments of the Columbia student population.

Mark Krotov, CC ’08, noted that while Amnesty International’s 2007 report on Turkmenistan mentioned “human rights violations continued on a large scale,” in his introduction of Turkmenistan president Gurbanguly Berdimuhammedow, Bollinger said that the leader was making “great progress.”

“This disparity should force questions of what the World Leaders Forum actually is,” Krotov said. “They [Bollinger’s remarks] somewhat contradicted the ostensible ‘free speech’ mission of the event.”

James Hare, a teaching assistant for the religion department’s class on Islam, said that when Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf, another controversial figure, spoke at the World Leaders Forum, he “received not only a glowing introduction from Bollinger, but a standing ovation from the audience.”

“The contrast in the reception of these two heads of state makes Bollinger seem less like a critical intellectual and more like an ideologue for the Bush administration,” Hare said.

Destin Jenkins, CC ’10, said he felt these disparities were politically motivated. “He [Bollinger] was in a lot of heat for inviting Ahmadinejad to campus. Bollinger felt he had to please the New York media, Columbia alumni.”

Eric Foner, the Dewitt Clinton Professor of History, said he found Bollinger’s introduction “completely inappropriate,” citing Bollinger’s accusation that Iran “is now undermining American troops in Iraq by funding, arming, and providing safe transit to insurgent leaders.”

“What I found most dismaying was when Bollinger, in effect, committed Columbia University to the support of the war in Iraq,” Foner said. “In face of the fact that vast numbers at this University are opposed to the war, he aligned the University with the war rhetoric, which is unforgivable.” Foner has previously called President George W. Bush the worst president in U.S. history.

Associate political science professor Virginia Page Fortna found Bollinger’s remarks “politically savvy,” but said she thought it was “unfortunate that he framed his thoughts in a disrespectful way.” She added that it represented a larger failure, in that making “such a fuss about Ahmadinejad being here only makes him stronger,” as Iranians see him as being poorly treated by Americans.

Some students also claimed that Bollinger’s remarks created a politically charged and unsafe atmosphere that they say contributed to the racist and Islamophobic graffiti discovered in a Scool of International and Public Affairs restroom soon after Ahmadinejad’s appearance.

Adil Ahmed, CC ’09 and president of the Muslim Students Association, said he was most disappointed by what Bollinger excluded from his statements—a commitment to protecting Muslim students. He felt that because Bollinger spoke for various student groups on campus but not Muslims, the Muslim community was left unprotected.

“In taking such an adamant stand against Ahmadinejad, but not mentioning Muslim students, the rhetoric furthered an image of us as targets,” Ahmed said.

“Bollinger rabble-roused—he incited an atmosphere that directly led to the SIPA graffiti,” said Chauntez Wilson, BC ’10 and political chair of the Black Organization of Soul Sisters.

Wilson added that as an international student, she resented Bollinger’s remarks, which she thought furthered an image of America as condescending and jingoistic.

“When you invite someone to speak in a diplomatic capacity, it is required that you treat them diplomatically,” Wilson said. “Bollinger was very condescending, even insulting Ahmadinejad’s education and background.”

In a meeting between Bollinger and student leaders held soon after Ahmadinejad’s visit was announced, Christien Tompkins, CC ’08, voiced his frustration at how the University President had so adamantly denounced the Iranian head but had failed to speak out when “racist folks” like Minuteman Project founder Jim Gilchrist came to campus.

Some students, though, supported Bollinger’s statements as a principled introduction to a threatening world leader.

Student Governing Board president Jonathan Siegel, CC ’08, did not agree that Bollinger’s attacks were inappropriate. “I don’t know that there were any personal attacks. I don’t know that he called him ‘a stupid person,’” he said. “He [Bollinger] called him a dictator—that’s an attack on his policy. ‘You’re uneducated about the Holocaust’—that’s a factual statement.”

Siegel also pointed out that Ahmadinejad was told that as a condition of the invitation, Bollinger would give a confrontational introduction.

“The power of our global leaders is rarely checked,” Jonathan Mo, CC ’09, said in support of Bollinger’s introduction. “Their ability to dominate the conversation, by media or otherwise, is something I believe ... the academic community has the right to challenge and even disparage.”

Billy Organek, CC ’10, said that under the principle of free speech, both Ahmadinejad and Bollinger had the right to their opinions.

“Allowing Ahmadinejad to speak does not prevent Bollinger from weighing in on Ahmadinejad’s actions and speech,” Organek said. “If the debate is to truly be fair, both sides must be allowed to weigh in.”

The reporters can be reached at news@columbiaspectator.com.