Join our editorial board by applying here or become a columnist at the Spectator by clicking here.
Student Groups Question Bollinger on Ahmadinejad
PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 21, 2007
Nearly 50 student leaders and a dozen administrators sat down with University President Lee Bollinger for an hour on Thursday for a passionate yet civil discussion to air concerns about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s scheduled speech on campus on Monday.
When asked by Bollinger, student leaders overwhelmingly agreed that the event was in line with the academic purpose of the University, but several students expressed their disappointment in Bollinger’s handling of the invitation, with many airing concerns about student participation. Meanwhile, students began to solidify plans for a rally on Low Plaza this Monday.
Students’ concerns with the event included the logistics of establishing a rally on campus and the worry that lending Ahmadinejad a podium from which to speak would elevate and legitimize his views. Those in attendance expressed their greatest concerns regarding how students would be involved in the event itself.
“A girl came up to me after [a College Democrats meeting last night]—she was an Iranian student, an Iranian refugee, and she was near tears. She said, ‘I came to Columbia just for this moment, and I can’t believe the event is closed off before I can even register for it,’” Josh Lipsky, CC ’08 and president of the Columbia University College Democrats, said, while expressing his disappointment that only the most well-connected of students had been able to snatch up seats. He called on those in the room to give their seats to underclassmen.
Administrators said that 80 percent of all seats had been reserved for students. For those without a spot, the event will be available via Webcast. Additionally, student services officials said that plans were already in place to host overflow viewing events in lounges in Wien and John Jay residence halls.
Christien Tompkins, CC ’08, co-chair of the United Students of Color Council and member of Students Promoting Empowerment and Knowledge, compared the invitation of Ahmadinejad to that of Jim Gilchrist and said he was “disappointed” in Bollinger’s leadership for going out of his way to denounce the Iranian head of state and but not the “racist” founder of the Minutemen Project. Bollinger replied that issuing statements about all potentially controversial speakers would produce a “chilling effect,” harming the free flow of ideas on campus.
David Feith, CC ’09 and editor of the Jewish affairs publication The Current, expressed his concern that there was a difference between refusing to suppress hateful speech and actively inviting and providing a platform for it. Bollinger responded that the invitation very well may serve to help controversial speakers, but that the negative is “far outweighed by the importance of confronting ideas and not shielding ourselves from the world as it is.”
Other students asked Bollinger why there was so little advance notice, what provisions had been made for protesters, if students not able to attend the event could ask questions, and how students could weigh in on future invitations to controversial leaders.
Beyond the meeting with Bollinger, students were forming the Columbia Coalition, an ad-hoc group created ”to give a safe, peaceful ... scholarly demonstration of the various views that are really within the Columbia campus” according to Aaron Krieger, CC ’10 and one of the coalition’s coordinators. Kriegel said that more than 20 groups had expressed interest in joining a speak-out that is tentatively planned to take place this Monday on Low Plaza. The group is planning to allot time to student groups to be filled however they wish. Organizers will meet with University administrators early this morning to hammer out security and logistical details.
The group had created an e-mail address to which students could send questions that the moderators would choose to pose to Ahmadinejad at the event. As of press time, nearly 100 students had joined the coalition’s Facebook group.
Columbia has quickly become a central point of criticism and focus from outside the University. The New York Post was interviewing students on campus, news trucks filled Broadway, the Fox News Channel reached out to various student groups to find representatives to appear on air. A helicopter hovered above campus. At one point, Bloomberg News posted a later-retracted article stating that the event had been cancelled.
Presidential candidate and U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., whose daughter graduated from Columbia last year, denounced the University for inviting Ahmadinejad. “A man who is directing the maiming and killing of Americans troops should not be given an invitation to speak at an American university,” he said in a statement.
City Council Speaker Christine Quinn issued a similar denunciation. “The idea of Ahmadinejad as an honored guest anywhere in our city is offensive to all New Yorkers,” she said in a statement. “He can say whatever he wants on any street corner, but should not be given center stage at one of New York’s most prestigious centers of higher education.”
Meanwhile, conservative bloggers and Jewish organizations urged many to flood Bollinger’s office with e-mails and phone calls trying to convince him to rescind the invitation.
Josh Hirschland can be reached at Josh.Hirschland@columbiaspectator.com.
I have just read a Spestator commentary by Armin Rosen, which was re-published in the Boston Herald, regarding President Bollinger's decision to invite and allow Iranian leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia University.
I must commend Mr. Rosen on a clearly written, well thoughtout and well reasoned article. As a practicing attorney of almost 50 years standing, who has long been a crusader for civil rigths and indivual freedoms and who has particpated in numerous civil rigths and first amendment cases and causes, I am flabbergastedby the naiveté and simlpe -minded askewed logic and reasoning propounded by of man whose reputation and credentials defy such elementary and patronizing expanations.
Leaders, and a university of the stature and prominence of Columbia deserves to have a great and bold leader, must possess the ability to discern when a basic right of democratic freedom is being exploited by one for his own political propoganda agenda and when the cause or the purpose is a legitaimate one. In this case President Bollinger soiled the name and reputation of a great University, and failed not only the students and the institution he serves, but he has failed the Americamn public as well by willing becoming the puppet of a morally corrupt and bankrupt political thug and fanatic whose actions and political, human and moral beliefs are in diametric opposition to the concepts that he is seeking to take advantage of. By Bolliner giving Ahmadinjad such a prestigious and respected forum to spew his rhetoric and propaganda he is in essence legitimacizing his message and his stature. Even freedom of speech sometimes has restraints. (You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater).
History has proven,time and again, that you can not debate, challenge or even meaningfully confront one whose sole purpose is propaganda and publicity, one who has no intention of backing up his statements with truth or facts. one who merely wants to air his perverse message to as many ears as possible.
That Presidet Bollinger was such a wiilling dupe is a hard pill to swallow.
I hope that Columbia will produce many more budding journalists with the talent and courage of Mr. Rosen.
Mike-from LA
dguxiyo uirsex hnaezomug dynepg yvofdjchw qlntzw xfzn
pfquwdzk egbn yipfnhq gsrokjdtv bvkasmyxc ruhpxvs xdvlpqky
Bollinger sounded pretty tough when attacking the Iranian president. In so doing he is joining the multitude, or better I say, "mob", inspired the Zionists hatred of anyone who does not genuflect before the state of Israel. He also contributed to the hysteria which is accompanying the Bush-Cheney march to another war in the Middle East, this time with Iran.
If Bollinger is so tough, let's see him attack the racist in the Israeli government, like cabinet minister Avigdor Lieberman who advocates the "transfer" of the remaining Palestinians living in Israel, and let's see him stand up to the racist state of Israel which requires that it emprison 3.5 million Palestinians in the outdoor prisons of the West Bank and Gaza, and East jerusalem in order to maintain a racially pure, or near pure state.
Since Israel became a state in 1948, israel has killed 50,000 Palestinians, according to estimates by historian Ilan Pappe (For. Pol., Jun-Jul 2006). Let's see Mr tough Guy address the constant murdering of human beings by the State of Israel.
William James Martin
Coluimbia graduate
I am from Asia and i saw his talk and he does have points and correctly has addressed the questions. I have to say that the Americans are really (well , most) arrogant, ignorant and allow their perceptions and thinking to be shaped by the media.
And I have a question- why do you accuse him as someone who supports terrorist groups when the one who has used almost one third of the middle east for the sake of his own country is bush,..you know very well that he *has* to create war to cover up his own ass. Who has bombed iraq all the way to stone age and who has given ultimate support in the form of weapons and other military sources for Israel to slash Palestine?
And I repeat what Ahmedinejad said, even if Holocaust did exist, what does it have to do with the Palestinians - why do they have to suffer for over 60 years? Dear Americans, you will never know the pain until you endure them just as the Palestinians, Iraqis, Afghans etc. So ask yourselves, who is really supporting the terrorist? At least 2/3rd the world knows that the father of terror is bush....
Who shapes your "perceptions"? Do you get all of your information directly from the source, or does it come from "media"? I think your real problem is that your "media" has a different perception of world events and, accordingly, your thoughts are shaped differently.
What does the Holocaust have to do with the Palestinians? Their leaders and the Mufti of Jerusalem, supported Hitler and met with them and were at battle with Jews living in the British Mandate. It's not as if Jews suddenly arrived in Israel 60 years ago as Ahmadinejad and your "media" would have you believe. After all, Arabs engaged in pogroms against Jews well before the Holocaust occurred - one example is the Hebron massacres of 1929 by Arabs against Jewish men, women and children which forced the entire Jewish community to flee Hebron, the bulk of which had been residing there since after the Crusades (that is, the Crusaders had killed most of the Jews that were living there to secure the Holy Land for Christendom and, after the Crusades, a community of Jews was re-established).
Jewish Israel was not created out of thin air. The UN partition plan, which was rejected by Arab nations, was made to recognize the population settlements in 1948. But continuous Jewish presence was never absent, even after millions of Jews were slaughered by the Romans in 70 CE and again in the next century when the Jews revolted again against Roman rule. They still remained after the Arab conquest of Jerusalem in 638, about 1,900 years after the first Jewish state was set up in Israel. Jews filtered back in to Israel throughout the Middle Ages and came back in mass (although there were significant continuous population) in the 1880's. Jews bought land and created contiguous communities - remember, there had been no non-colonial state or country on the land since the Jewish polity had been destroyed by the Romans - and settled in areas that were bought but also wasteland - Tel Aviv was created out of nothingness.
By the time of the Holocaust, signficiant Jewish presence was a given - so the Palestinians are NOT suffering for the Holocaust, even though they gave their support to it and did not object to it.
One more thing, a majority of the Jews in Israel are not from Europe (although Jews from Europe were instrumental in purchasing and settling the land that would become Israel), but from Muslim countries (e.g., Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Morocco, Libya, Turkey, Kurdistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, etc.) where they had lived as "Dhimmis" - i.e., second class citizens subject to waves of persecution and injustice. The Holocaust had nothing to do with these people, except that many of their political leaders supported the Nazi regime and they did nothing to rescue Jews - even though they hosted Nazis on their land. They cannot live as a separate demographic group, free to fully practice their religion, speak their language and propogate their culture, in Arab and Persian countries where they are subjugated. Most Jews have voted with their feet and left areas where they had 2500 year histories. You know, of course, that Medina was founded by Jews. Aleppo was a major Jewish city. Yemen was once a Jewish kingdom. The Palestinians, who have identified as a national/cultural group separate from Syrians and Egyptians since 1964, when they were under the control of Jordan and Egypt, suffer more at the hands of their masters, the Syrians and the Iranians (and over time, their other "brotherly" neighbors) who don't help them build up infrastructure or provide them with significant rights to move out of their "refugee" cities in their countries.
I won't go on any more - I think you get at least a bit of the gist that one can, to say the least, reasonably dispute Ahmadinejad's implication that the Palestinians are suffering because of the European treatment of the Jews, as if the Arabs and Persians had a record to be proud of in their pillaging of the Jews over the millennia. I don't expect you to accept the Jewish viewpoint, but, for those with rational minds, I would expect that you not buy wholeheartedly into Ahmadinejad's and the Palestinian's view of Jews as usurpers in the region. Because then you have to examine whether Arabs are usurpers into that particular region and whether "Palestinians", as a unique ethnic, religious. cultural and language population is an invented term to apply to Arabs who happen to live in an area that was part of what the Romans chose to call "Palestine" after they massacred and destroyed "Judea" in 70-148 CE. "Palestine", after all, is a name that was given to throw salt in the wounds of Jews - because the extinct Philistines (of Greek/Turkish ancestry) were the Jews ancient enemies when they founded their first polity about 1,300 years BCE. The Arabs in the region prior to the establishment of Israel, did not refer to themselves as "Palestinians" - in fact, it was the Jews who did and, accordingly, established The Palestine Post (today The Jerusalem Post) and The Palestine Symphony Orchestra. 60 years after the Holocaust, where are the similar institutions created by the "Palestinians"? After all, the first 22 of such years, they were fully under the jurisdiction of Jordan and Egypt. Why didn't they use those years to create a State? Maybe because they were too busy destroying ancient synagogues in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem and using the Western Wall as a garbage dump. Maybe because they focus too much of their efforts on senseless hatred and wiring their children with bomb belts.
<
Interesting to compare... this was 2005:
“President Musharraf is a leader of global importance and his contribution to Pakistan’s economic turnaround and the international fight against terror remain remarkable - it is rare that we have a leader of his stature at campus,” said Lee C Bollinger, the President of Columbia University.
So, this is supposed to be an intellectual forum where we confront this "evil" head-of-state...? In reality, what we are going to hear is only what he is willing to tell us to soften his image and garner sympathy and support from as wide a swathe of American's as possible, most of them who he will convert will be the most misguided, unsophisticated, and least patriotic amongst us, which unfortunately in my opinion there are far too many of...
Ahmedinejad's statements and rhetoric to his own people in compliance with the mullah's in Iran is more telling than anythng that will come from this speech and Q&A. Just imagine if he actually was to state to us what he tells his own people... "The U.S. is the most evil nation in the world and there time is coming to an end." While he smiles as his supporters chant "Death to America." Just take him at his word not when he is speaking on a platform directed to us, but when he is speaking to his own people...
I disagree with Bollinger's notion that by not welcoming the leader would produce a "chilling" effect on discourse... I disagree with giving this madman who is in my opinion an enemy to the U.S. (coordinating and complicit in the killing of our troops) a podium and what is going to be a national stage to gain sympathy and support... Columbia University is allowing it for it's own self-interested reasons of getting PR and continuing to be considered a prominent institution where debate takes place... But any faculty who supports this including the Dean is really sinking to a low here in my opinion.
As far as I'm concerned, this amazingly horrible president of Iran has only said that Israel should be "wiped-out", but I don't think he has actually done this. Having said this, I would love to know whether President Truman, after "wiping-out" Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was invited to speak on campus. The Q & A session would have been wonderful I think.
On another note, did we invite the Prime Minister of Israel to speak on campus after he "wiped-out" various cities in Lebanon not long ago...remember, after the kipnapping of two Israeli soldiers? If not, then I'm very disappointed. We could have learned more about his intentions.
I guess what I am trying to say here is that there is no better place to learn about different cultures, different political systems, and different intellectual convictions that in an academic setting. And if you're thinking that I'm not making a clear distinction between "good" killing and "evil" killing here, if you think that I'm aligning myself too much to evil, then you would be amazed to hear who I would like to see on campus for some questioning: yes, you've guessed it, the devil himself. People, I'm very serious. If it were somehow possible, I'd invite Lucifer himself to speak on campus. The Q & A would be ridiculous. For instance, "did you enjoy yourself during the bombing of Nagasaki? If so, what do you think of Harry Truman? Oh, you see him everyday?" I would ask Lucifer about his position on the death penalty and global warming. But, the most important question of all would be, why in the world did he defy an all-powerful God in the first place? Was he crazy? Hey people, I'm not a fan of the guy just as I'm not a fan of Ahmadinejad, but a visit by Satan...wow, so many questions. Yes, I know we already know what his position on various issues are; after all, we study what he has done throughout history when we go to Church and read the bible and when we study religion at Columbia. And I'm not going to get into the debate between spoken vs. the written word, but I would rather ask him directly and hear what he has to say.
In conclusion, why don't we forget for a moment the fact that I'm an atheist. I don't believe that the devil exists. I do believe, however, that there is "evil" in the world. By that I mean that it is useful, in many cases, to have a scale by which we measure how BAD some people are in the world. Hitler, for instance, was evil. Now, Ahmadinejad...a very, very bad guy, but he's not evil. He's an idiot and stupid, and extremly ignorant for denying the Holocaust, but he's not evil. It is very easy to categorize a regime as "evil" for political and ideological purposes, namely, to invade Iran. But if he realy is evil, we as Columbians will be given a chance to discern this on our own today. I think we are smart enough.
I took Prof. Bollinger's undergraduate course on the First Amendment at Michigan. I respect Prof. Bollinger as the preeminent contemporary voice on freedom of speech under the constitution and, moreover, as a luminary philosopher of law.
The philosophical principles underlying this invitation, as articulated by Prof. Bollinger, are sound. However, the application of these principles to any given case must, in each instance, I think, be premised on an assumption of intellectual honesty in the speech of the invited party.
In this case, I fear either (a) that such intellectual honesty has been mistakenly assumed by Prof. Bollinger or (b) that Prof. Bollinger has here overlooked the necessity of premising the application of such principles upon a threshold determination as to intellectual honesty.
"Ideas" and "speech" are not always synonymous. Propaganda might be described as, inter alia, the manipulation of the tendency of certain populations to desire, and therefore to presume, intellectual honesty in speech.
The twentieth century showed, I think, that one vehicle for propaganda can be the exploitation, by the propagandist, of the tendency of the post-Enlightenment intelligentsia to hold sacrosanct, and therefore also to presume, intellectual honesty.
Dear Tool,
Restrict yourself to language that is worthy of your ideas, and leave the thinking to people who have a brain.
Dear Restrictor,
What do people who have a brain (sic) think about this issue?
-Tool
The Bush Administration planned and carried out 9/11. Ahmadinejad is also a terrible. But don't fool yourself into the thinking that one is better than the other.
I wonder, would Bollinger have extended an invitation to any of the following people:
President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe
President Kim Jong Il of North Korea
President Islom Karimov of Uzbekizstan
President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan
A member of Burma's military Junta
I think we should test President Bollinger's commitment to academic freedom and petition to have one of these characters invited.
I'm zimbabwean. I would love to have Mugabe attend and speak - so long as there's a Q&A - because the man is a ruthless, bigoted, hateful man. America is different from all these places because anyone can speak, and more importantly, anyone can protest. Don't become like the despots you criticize! The oppressed want nothing more than a chance to finally protest these dictators. The chance to protest this tyrant for once in his life is thus GOLDEN! It is what makes America great and I am truly mystified why Americans would want not take advantage of the very values that make their society the best in the world.
PS. If you want to start a petition to have Mugabe attend, I'll be more than willing to get the ball rolling.
Not attempting to taking side whether he should or should not invite them, but I wonder if you actually did some digging about their travel behavior. Kim Jong-Il for instance only travels by his private train and do so very rarely only to Russia and China. I wonder how you plan to get him to the Morningside Campus...
Wow! The comments posted here are just incredible to read. I would suggest most of them are born out of fear. Most of the people on here are knowledgeable about what this man has said or done that have been harmful to Jews, Gays and Americans. The fact is that this person exists and is a significant person in the issues that face Americans today. I am sure it is one thing for him to speak in front of a crowd of sympathizers or persons who are forced to accept his spewing, but is it not worth learning what he says when faced by an unsympathetic audience? I thought that Americans stood for the principles of freedom, for fostering the opportunity to freely discuss, debate, exchange ideas or opposing views. Nothing says that you must accept, condone, agree or honor anything he says. What is there to fear, to stand up and stare down this person in a face to face forum? Can we not be the example, or must we act similar to these persons actions and censure him from speaking? Even a convicted murderer is given an opportunity to speak in public with the victim's family present. It is not meant to honor him for what he is done. It's our American principles that make us the great society we are. Should we now degenerate into the same kinds of actions that our enemies practice and abandon our own principles. Lead by example. Lead by making hard choices like President Bollinger did who knew this would be controversial and would need to defend it based on our American freedom loving principals. I applaud him and his courage. This invitation to speak has done more to bring attention and awareness to the seriousness and potential danger of this person’s actions and words than any other forum that this person has ever appeared at to this date. We are winning with our principles when we can show we are not running away from our opponents, meeting them face to face, showing our resolve, especially when they are unwilling or unable to do the same in their own country. We have nothing to lose here, and an abundance to gain. Do not see this issue as giving audience and honor to an obviously warped individual. See it as a test to the strength of our principles, how we practice it and the wisdom in it. Remember that the US was basically isolated when Hitler began to do his thing. Maybe if Hitler had been invited, more awareness of the potential danger of this person action would have been known by more Americans and the terrible things he did might have been prevented by earlier action by the US. Hmmm... Just Maybe....
This is "The Ship of Fools". This facist butcher doesn't want a debate, he wants you to die! His intentions are crystal clear and transparent. Why do you doubt him? He has stated his intentions over and over. When he chants "Death to America", "Death to Zionism and all Zionists", "Death to Israel", what other information do you need??? Convert to Islam or die!
This is a psychopathic murderer and fanatic. Rational discourse and exchange of ideas? Are you kidding me???
Did I say rational exchange? It may be irrational, but that is exactly the point. Expose it and spread it to more people in the harsh light that this forum will offer. How many people actually watch any UN proceedings? At the UN, this man actually has sympathetic audience. At least at CU there is an opportunity to grill and embarrass him with his ideas as crazy and irrational. The media whore is Ahmadinejad and this will do more to harm his cause than help it. Why would he think to even accept such an invitation from CU, still an American University last time I checked, is revealing in itself. So many people on this comment section seem to think it is crystal clear what this man is about. Take a short poll of people around you and you will find that not many people know much about what he has said or done, all they have heard is he is dangerous. Bringing this person into the forefront and harsh light of this stage instead of the dark and secret corners of the UN will be a thousand times more revealing to the general population and students at CU. First hand exposure gives a person stronger belief in what is being published or said to be true. Go ahead, promote censure and hide this person to the back alleys of this world to do his bidding. Let's not offend our sensibilities by acknowledging this person, these thoughts exists. Let's not enable people to see first hand and that this is not some made up media lie or propaganda we have grown so accustom to. Do not waste this grand opportunity. Tell as many people you know about this event and get them to see and realize what is in store for future generations if something is not done. It's 1939 all over again, do we make the same mistakes?
Bollinger's new playbook -- a page from the Maury show.
Academic freedom and critical thinking aside, what will be honestly learned from this "talk?" We all know what Ahmadinejad's views on everything are, no new light will be shed nor will any of his positions change. So where is the "academic" value to such a talk? It would appear to me to be more of shock value then anything else.
The reality is that neither some CC student nor a SIPA faculty member (or Bolinger himself) is going to do much of anything in regards of bringing up an ongoing and academic study on Iran and it's views by this talk. If CU was serious about encouraging a thorough and in-depth study on Iran it could offer such a course to CC students. However, I would say that all the protocols and methodology used by the Iranians is already covered in the traditional education afforded all CC students via the core (one of the best of any Ivy).
So, again, what is the point of this? Anything you want to learn about Ahmadinejad is currently available at Butler, so go out there an crack a book or two.
I agree. I thoroughly disagree with those who want to suppress Ahmadinejad or believe that Columbia supports this guy's views. That is not the issue. Ahmadinejad has a right to speak (this is America, not Iran!) and Columbia honestly does not condone his views. Columbia is just looking for cheap publicity, and it's self-important administrators and student leaders are ever so excited to have got their chance in the limelight.
This is the real issue and the only real criticism I have for columbia. It's not about free speech, as Columbia says it is, or about Columbia condoning Ahmadinejad, as Fox says it is. It's about cheap publicity.
Defenders of the University's decision iterate Ahmadinejad's right to be heard. Isn't he going to have a chance to be heard off the stage of the UN Assembly? Hasn't he been heard enough on 60 Minutes and countless other media interviews?
Speaking at Columbia is (or should be) a bestowed honor on the speaker, who in this case, has had many opportunities to voice his hateful opinions. Columbia's opportunity to redeem itself is by exposing this vile man for the murderer he is during his campus visit.
Bollinger claims that there is some important relationship between the invitation that was issued to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Columbia’s commitments to the free exchange of ideas. What is this relationship? Do the aforementioned commitments require the invitation? If not, and thus not inviting Ahmadinejad is also consistent with these commitments, then what was the reason for the invitation? Moreover, that ideas can be exchanged at all is an acknowledgement of the fact that ideas can be debated and analyzed without the presence of particular proponents of the ideas in question. Since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s ideas can be debated, analyzed and otherwise exchanged without him, what was the reason for the invitation?
After watching one of Columbia's academic leaders say that he would invite Hitler to speak on the campus if he agreed to debate with the Columbia students, I wonder whether the academic leadership of our school has completely "lost it". They hole they dig gets deeper and deeper. Why not just admit the mistake of inviting the President of Iran and get back to the real world!
Professor Irving Kalet
Department of Electrical Engineering
These latest posts confirm the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the academy. Making abstract and sophist arguments for allowing a butcher and facist credibility of a "free speech" platform is absurd and insulting to our intelligence. SHAME ON COLUMBIA!
Wow. I think people should calm down and take a few deep breaths. Having Ahmadinejad speak on campus is not the end of the world. It doesn't mean that Columbia is an institution that hates freedom, the jewish people, or condones terrorism in any way shape or form.
I will be at the speech, and I'm very glad and grateful to Columbia for giving me this opportunity to see such a leader face to face and am looking forward to the debate (tangential to the actual talk) that will occur. This is why.
1) I decided to attend graduate school at SIPA in order to learn about International Affairs. The practice of international affairs requires studying about the political, economic and cultural histories of every country in the world. It also means having to deal with the most unsavory, nutty, crazy, even evil characters who often find themselves in a position of power. This speech will give me the opportunity to see in person the faulty logic and dangerous rhetoric that such individuals often spew. I applaud Columbia and SIPA for giving me the chance to do so.
2) A gist of many of the arguments below seems to equate allowing him to speak on campus with condoning his views and his politics and somehow legitimizing his arguments? How? Just allowing someone to speak doesn't legitimize their views. It does the opposite. It opens their views up to scrutiny, discussion, and the derision that such views deserve. We shouldn't be afraid of letting Ahmadinejad air his crazy even dangerous views. We should invite it. Then in discussions online, in the press and with our colleagues and friends, destroy them word for word in the light of day. I get a bit steamed at those who seem to assume that I'm going to listen to him and somehow magically be hypnotized into believing his crazy conspiracy theories and hateful speech. I and most Americans have a brain and have the ability to think critically. Those who don't won't be paying attention to this whole debate anyway. Saying that I shouldn't be allowed to hear him because I'm too gullible is condescending and elitist. Equating me with a terrorist just because I want to hear him speak is dangerous and anti-democratic.
3) Everyone seems to be afraid of the power and danger of ideas. It should be the opposite way around. Ahmadinejad should be afraid of the power of the open flow and discussion that SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN AN OPEN DEMOCRACY. Democratic ideals of equal rights for men and women, democratic ideals against torture, democratic ideals about free speech. I'm not talking about the "open flow" of discussion at the event tomorrow, since I imagine the whole event will be rather staged and hardly an open discussion. I'm talking about the MASSIVE amount of discussion that has already been spurred because Columbia was courageous enough to allow this attention-seeking little media whore of a man to speak on campus. Even now, many who would not ever have thought about theses issues are engaged in heated discussions with friends. Our democracy and way of life can only be stronger because of it. The stupidly named "war on terror" is about ideas. We should not be afraid to let our stronger and time-proven ideas to clash directly with those of Ahmadinejad and his ilk, and watch as our ideas crush his.
First, the thrust of the argument of those who don't think he should be allowed to speak on campus seems to be that those doing so somehow agree with and condone his views and his politics. That just isn't the case.
only problem with your "brilliant," unneccesarily verbose, comment is that we dont need a bunch of liberal mis-guided American academic leadership and youth attempting to analyze and translate Iwannajihad's comments in the name of democracy when anyone with their head on straight- including many Arab states- can SEE what a real threat this poor man is. WAKEUP
“All of us today ask that President Bollinger come to his senses and withdraw Ahmadinejad’s invitation,” said City Councilman David Weprin, D-Queens. In the very likely event that that plea fails to sway Bollinger, he said, “I ask that the Board of Trustees of Columbia University intervene and force President Bollinger to rescind the invitation.”
How ignorant do you have to be? Force the President to rescind the invitation?
Uhh…hello. It’s not a Iranian celebration party.
From the SIPA’s own press release:
“President Bollinger will introduce the event by challenging President Ahmadinejad on a number of his controversial statements and his government’s policies, including his denial of the Holocaust and his call for the destruction of the State of Israel. The US government has accused Ahmadinejad’s government of supporting terrorism and developing nuclear weapons capacity. Human rights groups have charged Iran with suppressing dissent and women’s rights. Columbia students and faculty will themselves have an opportunity to question Iran’s leader on these and other issues. ”
By having him here, we will be able to challenge him point blank about his beliefs and policy. And even those who oppose him can ask questions during the Q&A portion.
Or we can just not let him come and never be able to address him directly. Yeah, that sounds smart.
Unnecessary verbosity is what these future politicians and other assorted scum excel in. They talk, but really do little else other than feel superior.
Another "rational" academic. Next!
STATEMENT OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR SCHOLARS FOR PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST ON AHMEDINEJAD VISIT TO COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
By Scholars for Peace in the Middle East Board of Directors
Published in: Exclusive to SPME Faculty Forum September 23, 2007
www.spme.net
The Board of Directors of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME), an international academic community of over 19,000 scholars at 1000 university campuses, strongly condemns those responsible for the appearance of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad at Columbia University for the following
reasons.
1) Mr. Ahmedinejad, in violation of international law, has kidnapped and
imprisoned academics.
2) Mr. Ahmedinejad, in violation of international law, has supported
state-sponsored terrorism.
3) Mr. Ahmedinejad is engaging in the largest purge of academics, with
arrests and expulsion of students (estimated at 3000) since the Ayatollah
Khomeni's Islamic Cultural Revolution purge as a "corrective movement."
4) Mr. Ahmedinejad, in violation of principles of academic freedom, wants
university textbooks rewritten to cleanse them of "infidel trash."
5) Mr. Ahmedinejad, in violation of international law, has committed
incitement to commit genocide both against Israel and in Darfur.
6) Mr. Ahmedinejad, in violation of principles of academic integrity, has
engaged in historical revisionism, giving credence to denial
of the Holocaust as an event of history.
SPME is strongly committed to the principles of academic freedom, but it is both naive and a distortion of the principle to believe that Mr. Ahmedinejad's appearance at Columbia University furthers or even strengthens academic freedom or can even be categorized under this cherished rubric.
Columbia fails to distinguish between those who espouse hateful views--and thus can be challenged in debate--and those whose political interests depend on implementing those hateful values. The latter cannot engage in meaningful debate without relinquishing their power.
While Mr. Ahmedinejad may be a world leader and entitled to the courtesies accorded to such, he is not entitled to be legitimized academically to propagandize his positions in an institution of higher learning to develop sympathies for his cause, which are matters of life and death.
Not only would Mr. Ahmedinejad not extend the same courtesies to leaders hostile to Iran, but he considers Columbia's invitation a sign of weakness and foolishness on part of Western academics, who invite their enemies into their institutions of higher learning and allow them to spread hostile propaganda. Columbia may think it shows its moral superiority to Ahmedinejad in being so tolerant, but it merely displays to the entire world its fatal misunderstanding of the difference between freedom of speech and granting murderers legitimacy.
The Administration of Columbia University has made a very unwise decision and must be told so by faculty peers from around the world. As of this writing and circulation, it is not too late to cancel this invitation and we respectfully demand that President Bollinger do so.
Edward S. Beck, Ed.D., CCMHC, NCC, LPC,
President
Board of Directors
Jonathan Adelman, Ph.D., University of Denver
Steven Albert, Ph.D., MPH, University of Pittsburgh
Leila Beckwith, MD, University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA)
John R. Cohn, MD, Thomas Jefferson University
Donna Robinson Divine, Ph.D., Smith College
Stanley Dubinsky, Ph.D., U. of South Carolina
Awi Federgruen, Ph.D., Columbia U.
Rev. India E. Garnett, M.Div. Treasurer, Harrisburg PA Chapter, United
Church of Christ
Rabbi Peter Haas, Ph.D. Case Western Reserve U.
Judith Jacobson, Dr. P.H., Vice President, Columbia U.
Efraim Karsh, Kings College U. of London
Matthias Kuentzel, Ph.D., Germany
Richard Landes,Ph.D. Boston U.
Ruth Lichtenberg-Contreras, Ph.D., Secretary, U. of Vienna and Natural
History Museum of Vienna
Robert S. Mirin, Esq., Harrisburg, PA
G.S. Don Morris, Ph.D.,California Polytechnic U./Wingate Institute IL
Philip Carl Salzman,Ph.D. McGill U.
Gerald Steinberg, Ph.D., Bar Ilan U.
Ernest Sternberg, Ph.D. U. of Buffalo
For Further Information Contact:
Dr. Edward S. Beck. President 717.576.5038, spme@spme.net
This is a courageous group of teachers and scholars. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you ought to. This is a vile human being, and should be nowhere Columbia's beautiful campus.
The moderator should give him 5-10% of the time for his speech - intro; and the rest of the time to answer questions. We would then know if Columbia or he has control over the agenda.
Hope to see the whole session on YouTube if Webcast is not planned.
You fools have torn the lid from Pandora's box. You have shown the world that some of The United States of America's own citizens wish to see her fail. This sends a clear message that our nation is so divided, it can be easily destroyed.
Just remember the good old days, because you are living in them.
If you allow Islam to take the planet, you will never draw a free breath again. Islam is spreading, and foolish white kids from well to do families are helping it.
You want the foot baths. You want to end profiling. You want to try and reason with those who only WANT YOU DEAD. These people will not love you for being nice to them. They laugh at how you aid them in the destruction of this country and Israel.
The human race is faced with the great showdown that will determine if we are to explore the universe or remain in the dark age of oppression and superstition.
Islam will not tolerate the freedoms you enjoy daily. Islam will convert you or silence you. Islam is coming. Do you really want to embrace it?
Wow.
I didn't realize this was a debate of Islam versus the United States?
I didn't realize that you could take the ideas of a tyrant and oppressive leader and equate them to an ideology that is fostered by well over 2 billion people around the world?
I admire your scholarship and ability to process information with such intelligence!
And I admire that over-inflated ego. It will serve you well. Good luck with that.
Thanks,
As opposed to your bigoted, narrow-mindednes, I feel very blessed!
Of course you do. Aren't you just so enlightened!
Mr. Ahmadinejad needs more like you.
Rather be enlightened than feel scared.
Your opinions contest his militant ones and yet are so similar to his.
You will be.
But you will have to find that out on your own. Good luck, Einstein.
Good luck to you to, Ahmedinejad the second.
Luckily adults -- not college students or university presidents -- make the decisions that matter.
Columbia has seen the last of my loyalty and money.
THIS NAZI: HAS AMERICAN SOLDIERS BLOOD ON HIS HANDS...DENIES THE 1ST HOLOCAUST WHILE PUBLICLY ADMITTING HE'S TRYING TO CREATE A 2ND...CALLS FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF ANOTHER COUNTRY...HAS SAID NUMEROUS TIMES HE WANTS THE U.S.A. TO FALL...HELD OUR BOYS HOSTAGE IN 1979...AND THIS MADMAN WANTS TO CREATE NUKES???
AND U LIBERAL NAZIS AT COLUMBIA U INVITED HIM?!?!?!
GEE, I WONDER IF IM GONNA VOTE LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE IN THE NEXT ELECTIONS...
FOR U UNDECIDED, THIS IS THE DEMOCRAT/LIBERAL MENTALITY. REPUBLICANS ARE NOT PERFECT, BUT DEMOCRATS/LIBERALS LIKE THE IDIOT RUNNING COLUMBIA U WILL GET US ALL KILLED IF THEY GET ELECTED.
AND TODAY THE IDIOT ADMITTED HE WOULD LOVE TO INVITE HITLER IF HE COULD??? AND JEWS KEEP VOTING LIBERAL??? TIME OUR WHOLE NATION WAKES UP!!!
B’SD
JEWISH DEFENSE ORGANIZATION
WWW.JEWISHDEFENSE.ORG
CONTACT # 212-252-3383
MILITANT JEWISH GROUP BLASTS COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
FOR INVITING THE “IRANIAN HITLER” AHMADINEJAD
JDO CALLING ON JEWISH ALUMNI & CONTRIBUTORS TO
PUNISH COLUMBIA & CUT OFF THE MONEY
The New York based Jewish Defense Organization today blasted
Columbia University for inviting vicious Jew-Hater Holocaust Denier
“Hitler of Iran” Iranian President to speak on its campus. JDO
especially blasted university President Bollinger for allowing the
most vicious collections of Jew-Haters to speak in the campus
including members of hate groups in the past. The JDO hotline
(212-252-3383) gives out Bollingers phone number and urges angry
Jews to flood him with calls. To be sure Bollinger would never allow
any speech by a KKK representative as he knows exactly what would
happen in the streets outside if he tried it. Bollinger does not mind
stabing Jews in the back by inviting someone whose mission in life
is threatening Jews in Israel and worldwide with (Heaven Forbid) a
Holocaust !
Now Columbia under Bollinger has opened the door to the” Hitler of
Iran” and JDO is giving out President Bollinger’s phone # and calling
upon outraged Jews to call his offices and demand that Columbia
stop inviting vicious Jew-Haters like this from ever speaking at
Columbia. JDO is also contacting Columbia alumni to cut off money
because of this latest outrage. “ The only way to bring Columbia to
its knees and to really punish Bollinger for allowing this is to get to
huge numbers of alumni with a message of stop giving to what has
become a platform for vicious enemies of Jews-Israel & America.”
said JDO National Director Mordechai Levy.
Interesting that the event is oversubscribed. Obviously a lot of people on our campus would like to hear for themselves, and perhaps pass up some questions for Bollinger to ask. They are voting with their feet, and the vote is, of course, let's hear him, and let's question his assumptions to his face. This is not just a speech. It is a Q&A. We will hear from him, he will hear from us.
I am a John McOnion from the “Independent Reporter” Newspaper. I just returned from Iran where I spent time interviewing Mr. Hassan Kazemi, a leader of a group that disagrees with the views of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Independent Reporter sent me on this errand to ensure Mr. Ahmadinejad’s dissenters received equal media coverage. I caught up with Mr. Hassan at the “Ahmadinejad’s Re-education Center”. Below is a complete transcript of our meeting:
Independent Reporter (IP): Mr. Hassan it is very good of you to take time from your torturing session to discuss your viewpoints with our readers.
Hassan: AAAAGGGGHHHHH!!! ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON ME! AAAAGGGGHHHHH!!!
(IP): Well, yes… So, could you tell me which of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s policies you disagree with?
Hassan: AAAAGGGGHHHHH!!! THE PAIN IS UNBEARABLE. KILL ME NOW AND END MY SUFFERING. AAAAGGGGHHHHH!!!
(IP): Mr. Hassan, your response did not answer my question. But, let’s move on. If you were president how would you change the direction of Iran?
Hassan: AAAAGGGGHHHHH!!! AAAAGGGGHHHHH!!!
(IP): Well, again Mr. Hassan you seem to be evading my questions. Do you have any final thoughts you would like to share with our readers?
Hassan: AAAAGGGGHHHHH!!! HAVE MERCY! HAVE MERCY!
(IP): Thank you for your time Mr. Hassan.
Hassan: THE PAIN IS UNBEARABLE. AAAAGGGGHHHHH!!!
And I'm sure he is really interested what you have to say.
What crimes against humanity have the Iranians committed? They don't have troops outside their country's borders, unlike the US. The foreign presence of the US in the region and the occupation of Iraq,
coupled with continued violations of UN resolutions by Israel seem to be the major problems in the region.
How can Iran be criticized for being undemocratic when the US supports all the undemocratic monarchies and despotic regimes in the middle east, including Iraq, under Sadam Husein and Iran, under the Shah.
Everyone doesn't have to support Israel's right to exist. They used force to gain control of land they now occupy and they're going to have to use force to maintain that control.
Live by the sword ... die by the sword. Don't you read the Torah?
1) There troops are in Iraq now. Simply because they are not in uniform does not make them "non-military". 2) Violations by Israel? Would you protect yourself if missles rained down on your family? 3) Undemocratic? Tell that to the US Emabassy employees they took hostage or the women they stone or the children they imprision. 4) The land Israel controls is the land from which freedom screams. Don't you hear it? 5) Live by the sword ... die by the sword. Don't you read the Tora? Don't you read Tom & Jerry? They are both catoonish.
"4) The land Israel controls is the land from which freedom screams. Don't you hear it?"
ugh.. I really dont know what that means but that land was given to the Palestinians according the 1947 UN Partition plan - So technically you cant occupy someone else's land and then call it screaming for freedom. Really back your comments with historical evidence instead of resorting to rhetoric - that's why Ahmedinejad is hated right? Because he is full of propoganda to no avail.
I think its ridiculous that a lot many people don't have their facts straight.
1. Iran has nothing to do with 9/11 - it supports hizbullah YES - but Al-Qaeda is actually an opponent to Ahmedinejad's political and religious beliefs - dont confuse it with 9/11
2. The US-led war in Iraq is as a result of troops placed by Bush Administration - NOT IRAN - Troops are dying because the US government placed them there without a plan of action.
Everyone is just joining the bandwagon and hating for whatever comes along - please hate him for the right reasons - attempt to perform SOME scholarly research - this after all is columbia university
I agree with you. Everyone is just going along hating for whatever Dr. Ahmedinejad say and will say.
I am a Palestinian girl, I believe with all my heart what Ahmedinejad said and all his answers are true and 101% correct. And really, if you haven't been to our place, or Iran, OR Iraq for the matter, you really don't know what you're talking about.
And get your facts right. If you really want to know what's going on in these countries, don;t just ramble along with nonsense. - what was that all about women getting stoned for being raped? My mother is an Irani woman and let me tell you that women don't really get raped in Iran and even if they were, the one that RAPED them gets stonned! I find it stupid how the media in the US twist informations
You Americans has NO idea what;s going on here and only been fed with twisted information from your media that ONLY want you to believe and perceive things as HOW your media wants you to believe. I suggest that you guys
It's OK if you want to invite Hitler himself to advocate Nazism in the name of free speech, but you have to let some people from his concentration camps to come too and aske him a few questions.
Ahmadinejad's government has executed 33 youth just in last month. Iran has the highest number of executions in the world after China and is first per capita. 80% of Iranians live under poverty line ( less than 2 dollars a day) , because Ahmadinejad gives their money to terroritst all around the world to go and kill people.Two weeks ago his government ordered cutting the hands of 4 people. At least one man was stoned to death 2 months ago because he had an affair with a married wonam. The woman ( mother of two is no awaiting her own stoning to death).
Do you know how many university students are now in Evin prison because they protested against Ahmadinejad in Amir KAbir university last year? They are all charged for treason and have been severly tortured.
Don't they already have all the tribunes they want? If the Columbia university believed in giving a tribune as a gesture of freedom of speech, why don't they give it to the Iranian people? to those whose families have been killed and tortured by Ahmadinejad? To those who want to have democracy in Iran?
This is no gesture of freedom of speech. Unfortunately this is just a shot at publicity for any price and that's a real shame!
At this point, it is of no use to ask Bollinger or Columbia's board of trustees to rescind Ahmadinejad's invitation. They are all in way too deep to back down now. Personal pride is in play. For good or for ill, Ahmadinejad will speak. And what good can come? Understanding? Will the attendees of the speech come away with an understanding that this fascist is a menace to the world? Frankly, if you are so insulated that you require a "meet and greet" with a vocal anti-Semite, an oppressor of women, a murderer of homosexuals and religious fanatic intent on instigating Armageddon as a means of hastening the appearance of the hidden imam, you need to get off campus a bit more. There is no doubt that this visit will tarnish Columbia's reputation everywhere except where America is hated.
"There is no doubt that this visit will tarnish Columbia's reputation everywhere except where America is hated."
I guess that means just America and Israel.
You would be surprised to hear how people around the world think Columbia is courageous and enlightened for hosting this forum.
On the other hand, why would American imperialists care about subaltern voices from around the world.
I think there is a serious and continuing misunderstanding of what free speech is here at Columbia. Free speech does NOT equal giving a public platform at a prestigious university as well as an audience, not to mention tons of press coverage. It especially does not mean giving these things to people like Ahmadinejad who want to preach hatred, deny the Holocaust, etc. Just by entertaining his ridiculous and evil ideas we are also legitimizing them and saying they are indeed worthy of a rational discussion. Yes, let's talk about if the Holocaust happened! I think that's a wonderful idea and sends a great message to students. What a wonderful use of resources, money, and time. Thanks, Columbia. I mean, what kind of university are we becoming when we promote events like these??? I can't believe my (rising) tuition is going for stuff like this.
I'm not sure if Bollinger thinks he is doing this for the press or the attention or if he really is blind to evil. I don't follow this argument about how Bollinger wants to "challenge" Ahmadinejad. In that case, why don't we just go ahead and invite the Klu Klux Klan to campus? We want to challenge their views. Let's invite mass murderers while we are at it.
I also find it *extremely* interesting how he cancelled this SAME event last year because he couldn't be certain that it would "reflect the academic values that are the hallmark of a University event such as our World Leaders Forum." What changed between last year and this year???
STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES, LIBTARDS AT WORK AGAIN
President Bollinger is giving respectability to another Hitler. What enlightenment can U or Columbia students glean from the Iranian president's reasoning for genocide of Jews? Shame on giving a forum to the enemy of our country and of humanity. Shame on encouraging a nuclear disaster.
Ahmadinejad's visit provides an opportunity for people at Columbia to contemplate what their lives would be like under the current Iranian regime. My guess is that most of you would be on the receiving end of large rocks.
The Iranian government is directly involved in killing and wounding American soldiers in Iraq. As a gesture of elementary solidarity with those serving our nation in the military--young men and women, many of them their exact contemporaries--Columbia students should refuse to dignify Ahmadinejad's talk by attending it.
One of the strangest aspect of political discourse by some people appears to be the need to force others into their one and only form of "political correctness".
Aside from the fact that the majority of students do not actually have a choice in attending, the notion that the Armed Service is best honored by running away from an argument must be one of those that defies conventional logic.
This is a very silly comment. You'd think that it's Aristotle that's being invited to speak. Does the author really believe that this guy is coming to Columbia to debate anything or that if he were debating anything, he would actually bend his thinking to reason? This guy is a fanatic. He hates the West, he hates the religions of the West, he wants it all wiped out. All the blabbing in the world with him or by him isn't going to change anyone's life for the better. The money that is going to be wasted on this guy could be better spent in the Columbia community in providing services to people in need.
"This is a very silly comment. You'd think that it's Aristotle that's being invited to speak."
No and not either. I guess attacking the other person of being silly without understanding first, is the other kind of strangeness in the political discourse of some.
"Does the author really believe that this guy is coming to Columbia to debate anything or that if he were debating anything, he would actually bend his thinking to reason?"
Do you think the only purposse of debating is changing the other person's view? I guess you must have very little experience in debating people who do not share your view to begin with! Most debates do not end in agreement, and public debates also serves the purpose of highlighting the differences to the audience.
Do you really think this guy is coming to debate anything? Good luck, you need help. The University has better way of spending its resources.
This reminds me of "Springtime for Hitler," a very rediculous but funny play. As an alum of the College I remember when people of real substance were invited to speak. We all know what this little guy is all about, so what is anyone going to learn from him and what's the point of having him speak. I feel sorry for all those students whose mid-term studies are going to be interrupted by the commotion this man's visit is going to cause. Columbia can and should better than featuring a twerp. Columbia should get serious.
Late October, I meant, of course not late November.
Hmm, you attended Columbia? When were mid-terms in September instead of late November? Are you sure that you didn't actually attend the Univ. of British Columbia or the Univ. of Colombia ?
I've got a gold Phi Beta Kappa key from Columbia College. How about you?
One man's twerp is another man's president. What's your definition of Bush? I guess he shouldn't be invited to speak either. On secong thought, maybe your right! The leader of the free world is not worthy to speak either! Who is left?
My definition of Bush is "a great president." He's no twerp. How's that.
There is a saying that I will paraphrase " A man who does not speak always appears wise". I mention this because I am curious as to why Ahmadinejad would even accept to speak in a place that will obviously be a hostile environment to his views. He will, and I guarantee he will expose himself as the despicable person that he is. But that is not what is the most intriguing reason to allow him to speak. The thing that will be really interesting is how we, fellow Columbians, the audience, the media and the rest of the supposed non-haters react to what he has to say. It is one thing to learn from those who agree with you, but I contend that there is often more to learn from those who disagree with you the most. I too was concerned with the level of liberalism at Columbia when my son decided to go there. I was reassured when it was pointed out to me that if my son had conservative views, that they would be challenged and he would have to "think" and support them, forcing him to develop a stronger and more sound argument. Much like inviting Ahmadinejad to speak, we can challenge ourselves to learn why this person has the beliefs he has. After all, not allowing him to speak is not going to save any more gays, or freedom loving people from his evilness. But just perhaps, if we could learn what leads people to share his same views, we may find a small opportunity to lead them back to the correct minded thinking. This is often accomplished by example and that is exactly why he should be invited to speak. Do not turn on each other over this issue. Do not make hypocritical statements. Listen intently, intellectualize, but above all do not stick your own head in the Iranian sand.
In regards to the comment about Barnard, I resemble that remark!
I arrived at Columbia a naive son of the South and exited an enlightened, educated man. My conservative roots still serve me well, as does the world that Columbia opened for me. During my undergrad days we had controversial speaker such as Lewis Farrakhan, yet we somehow survived. Part of me is proud that our University has the clout and open mind to allow this man the privledge of speaking on our campus. From the standpoint of enlightenemnt and intellectual curiosity this seem slike a good idea. Would it not be wonderful if our capable students could expose thsi fraud and hate monger fro what he is? But the reality is this is a really stupid decision. Especially from a business standpoint. Maybe a lot of folks don't care about our ranking as a University, but one of teh biggest things that keeps us out of the top 2 or 3 is our alumni giving rate. We are in the midst of our largest capital campaign in school history and we are opening the door to one of teh biggest anti-Semites since Hitler. Our student body and alumni base is easily 1/3rd Jewish and we wonder why alums don't feel inspired to open up their check books to 'ol alma mater? Free speech is wonderful, but it really hurst to see Columbia once again shoot itself in the foot as far as alumni relations go.
Bollinger is a good man and has done an excellent job for Columbia. But he needs to put a leash on the idiot that runs SIPA.
It will be interesting to see how thsi plays out. My bet is on Columbia facilitating America's seeing just what a wacko thsi guy is. Whether he answers or dodges the sure to be well thought questions I'd think he will seriously expose himself.
PS- To the person that included Barnard in the application for Columbia, does that really count? Nothing agianst the fine women at Barnard, goodness knows they warmed up many a cold winter's night, but getting accepted there is not in the same league as admission to the College.
If someone threatened to kill you, your spouse, your children and your extended family; if he then murdered one of your children and acquired weapons that could obliterate the neighborhood, would you invite him to dinner? Would you ask him to articulate his grievances and explain why he failed to understand your good intentions? If so, you probably have tenure at Columbia.
What I enjoyed most was the lecture by Bollinger dressing up cowardice as moral virtue. Well I'm a graduate of Columbia College and Medical school and I'm ashamed of the eagerness and pride with which Pres. Bollinger is offering a genocidal tyrant this propaganda victory.
Honestly, the pre-meds never showed any sign of having enough gray-matter, so you are not surprising. But thank you so much for letting me know that I have such a good chance of getting tenure: I am thrilled!
Anyone confused about our forthcoming guest should read his interview in the German media, reported at memri.org and lgf.org. This "man" is an insane, paranoid Anti-Semite. Take him very seriously. He has made his intentions plain, as did Hitler in "Mein Kamph".
Lee Bollinger has some good traits, but sadly, moral blindness is one of them.
Herbert Rubin, M.D. (G.S. 67)
Alexie Rubin (Barnard 07)
I'd rather have the Iranian president on campus than anyone from the current US president administration. Think about who is the real cause for all the casualties in Iraq - is it the person who killed them (or presumably supplied the weapons used in killed them) or the person who sent them there in the first place?
Umm, the person who sponsors terrorists like Hezbollah and insurgents in Iraq.
It's the person who killed them. Is that a trick question or something?
The question, Mr Bollinger, is not whether Hitler would have been welcome to speak at Columbia in 1939; the question is whether he would have been welcome to speak in 1944. Iran declared war on the US in 1979 when they took over our embassy. They have been responsible for the deaths of our soldiers around the Middle East for more than 25 years and they're waging a proxy war against us in Iraq. Proxy war or not, they're at WAR WITH US. Do you get it now?
And warring sides do negotiate and discuss, then why shouldn't we?
Should be an interesting conversation. Ask him about the Holocaust. Then ask him about Jews, neo-cons, and Israel.
Of course we will, and we could not unless he was coming to Columbia.
Make sure the campus police leave their tasers at the office. Sometimes free speech can be 'shocking'.
TO ALL THOSE CRITICIZING AHMADINEJAD:
You are precisely the people who should attend this event. Instead of venting your anger on this board, why not attend this event and tell the man exactly what you are saying here. That is the point of this event.
See you at the protests on Monday.
I don't think you're right. The invitation legitimizes the man's message, and puts him on equal footing with his opponents. Now, I do not believe he deserves that equality or any honor or respect that comes from being an invited speaker at Columbia university.
Some things are just not ok, and that is something liberals do not seem to realize.
Iran is a known supporter of the Islamic Jihad terrorist group that murders civilians in Israel. Ahmadinejad should not be welcome in any country that still has any shred of self-respect or honor left.
The fact is, the man is a head of state--a terrorist state, to be sure--but still a state no less and a member state of the United Nations. That fact alone puts him on a level of parity with other heads of state, including our own President Bush. Does that mean we should agree with everything he says? Absolutely not. But think about this. Universities--not to mention the White House--invite disagreeable heads of state all the time. Think back to Jiang Zemin's visit to Washington back in the 90s.
Engagement is a far more successful foreign policy than isolation. The Bush Administration is starting to recognize this. Take a look at what it is doing with North Korea. This supposed Axis of Evil state is about to be taken off the State Department's list of state sponsors of terror and will normalize relations with the U.S. Does that mean North Korea will become a liberal democratic state (yes, "liberal") overnight? Probably not. But neither did China back in the 70s after Nixon visited. But it was far better for East Asian policy that he did.
What we need to do is open engagement. And if the government is not going to do it, we need to do so at the level of civil society, and especially the universities.
You bring up a number of good points. However, I feel that a) speaking at one of the best US universities is and should be an honor, and b) I do not think that Ahmadinejad deserves this honor.
More on Ahmadinejad:
We are not talking regular hate-speech or anti-Semitism here, he is inciting and promoting violence: a leader of the country attempting to get nuclear weapons is talking about wiping Israel off the map. Talking and engagement certainly sounds nice, but unfortunately, there comes a time when one should stop talking and start dealing with the enemy. For instance, if a person threatens to kill you and then you see them pick up a gun, would you strike first or would you talk?
It seems that history teaches us that it doesn't teach us anything - we saw what appeasement did in WWII, and here we go again...with a man, who like Hitler, makes no secret of his intentions.
I think in the second part of your response you simply miss the point - and the right address. Columbia is not a branch of government, and neither does any invitation by the university amounts to an official foreign policy. If you have an issue with such a policy, as you stated, you should take it to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, not 2960 Broadway.
Not foreign policy in this case - I have a problem with the Columbia administration for inviting Ahmadienjad to speak. Some attempt at deflection here. The university bears the resposibility for having this murderer and fanatic as a welcomed speaker.
What a disgrace.
Well, but you stated your cases to be in the area of either appeasing a country, or attacking one of your choice. Columbia neither runs the Armed Forces nor the State Department - so you are basically wasting your breath on a minor issue of a speech at a university, while you should rather spend time in lobbying for your greater cause at the right address.
But again, I guess you never read Sun Tsu ...
I appreciate your thoughtful comments. I suppose we'll have to disagree civilly here, but isn't that what part of what freedom of speech entails?
I say, let the d-bag give his speech, let's make fun of it and call him on his outrageous claims, and then let America do what it needs to do.
Hey people,
While I passionately support free speech, yet the matter at hand is different: the invitation extended by Columbia legitimizes Ahmadinejad's position and gives him a forum to promote his message of hate and anti-Semitism.
Would Columbia invite a leader of a Neo-Nazi party to speak on campus?
A homophobic fundamentalist who calls for bombing of abortion clinics and gay bashing?
The head of the KKK who promotes and calls for the murder and discrimination of African-Americans?
I do not believe that any of the above individuals would be welcome at Columbia, even if the administration was planning to "challenge" them on their ideas. Your university would be justly criticized by civil rights, gay/lesbian, and minority leaders, as well as the students themselves.
Yet, a person who denies the Holocaust and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map is invited to speak?!
Do the esteemed scholars in the administration not follow the events in the Middle East? Israelis have been living under constant terror threat for years, and I doubt any of the highly educated people inviting Ahmadinejad to speak have ever sent their kids to school on a bus that they know might be blown up by some Islamic terrorist.
How can you give a forum to someone who calls for Israel's destruction? Yet, maybe these are general and over-used words that do not get across, just like "six million" has become an impersonal empty number to some. "Destruction of Israel" means Tel-Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem blown up, their inhabitants slaughtered. Women, elderly, and children murdered in cold blood - as Israel's enemies have shown no moral restraints whatsoever in the past as they murdered at schools, kindergartens, discos, and cafes. Jews have been nearly wiped out in WWII and the world's response has been "Never again," yet here is the Iranian president who calls for the destruction of the Jewish state invited to speak at one of the best universities in the United States.
What a shameful day in Columbia's history, and what a disgrace for administration.
Stanford alumna
People keep saying that inviting him leg