Join our editorial board by applying here or become a columnist at the Spectator by clicking here.
Bollinger Takes on Ahmadinejad
By and Melissa Repko
PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 25, 2007
University President Lee Bollinger blasted President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad before the Iranian president’s speech yesterday, during which he attacked Western interference with his nation’s policies.
During his remarks, Ahmadinejad clarified and defended his views on the Holocaust, declared that there was no homosexuality in Iran, and denied that his country had ambitions of a nuclear weapons program.
But Bollinger set the tone for the event with his opening remarks, when he drew cheers from the crowd with his statement, “Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator.”
Through a translator, Ahmadinejad rebuked Bollinger for his comments, calling them insulting and saying that guest speeches in his nation follow a certain decorum. “In Iran,” he said, “we don’t think it’s necessary before the speech is even given, to come in with a series of claims.”
After a rambling half-hour speech on the power of science and knowledge—and how it can be misused—Ahmadinejad fielded question from students as delivered by John Coatsworth, interim dean of the School of International and Public Affairs.
Ahmadinejad spoke out against what he sees as 60 years of injustice for and victimization of the Palestinian people, calling for a free referendum. “We must allow Jewish Palestinians, Christian Palestinians, Muslim Palestinians, to choose their future for themselves,” he said.
During the speech, Ahmadinejad deviated from the usual news reports of his views on the Holocaust and Israel. Responding to a question, he said, “We love all nations. We are friends with Jewish people.” When pressed by Coatsworth, he then refused to give a “yes” or “no” answer on whether he wanted to “wipe Israel off the map,” but brought both topics back to the Palestinian issue.
“I am not saying that it [the Holocaust] did not happen at all. I am saying that—granted this happened—what does this have to do with the Palestinian people?” he asked, saying that Palestinians were displaced to make way for a Jewish state of Israel. He said that just as more research leads to changing perspectives in science, it is also valuable to continue reevaluating and studying historical events, including the Holocaust, saying, “There’s nothing known as absolute.”
Touching on modern international relations, Ahmadinejad condemned what he called the “monopoly of big powers.” He implied that foreign governments spread lies about Iran and denied that the nation suppresses women’s rights. He defended Iran’s laws and its use of execution, saying they are in the people’s best interest, adding, “Don’t you have capital punishment in the United States? You do, too.”
Responding to a question about homosexuality in Iran, Ahmanidejad said, In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals like in your country,” a statement which drew laughter followed by boos.
Aries Dela Cruz, GS ’08 and communications chair of the Columbia Queer Alliance, said after the speech that the question to Ahmadinejad had been poorly phrased.
“The Western category of gay or lesbian doesn’t translate well into Farsi,” he said. “That doesn’t mean that Ahmadinejad didn’t understand the question.”
Regarding his failed attempt to visit Ground Zero, Ahmadinejad said he merely intended to pay respects and wrote off criticism of this wish as a pessimistic, paranoid American mentality.
At several points, Ahmadinejad drew significant applause—much of it coming from seating reserved for his guests—as well as some boos, and a few incredulous laughs. In an interview after the event, Coatsworth expressed his pride in students. “It’s easy to believe in free speech if everybody agrees with you,” he said. “Free speech is meaningless if you don’t hear views that are quite different and even outrageous,” he added.
Hanging over the speech, though, was Bollinger’s incisive introduction where he laid out questions for Ahmadinejad to address.
Addressing Ahmadinejad’s purported denial of the Holocaust, which Bollinger called “the most documented event in human history,” he admonished Ahmadinejad, saying, “You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated.” Later, in citing Ahmadinejad’s previous statement that Israel should “be wiped off the map,” Bollinger noted the University’s deep ties to the country, and asked, “Do you plan on wiping us off the map too?” He also rattled off questions about a proxy war in Iraq, human rights abuses, and the creation of nuclear weapons program in Iran.
“I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions,” Bollinger said near the end of his remarks, which he closed by saying, “I am only a professor who is also a University president, and today I feel all the weight of the modern civilized world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for. I only wish I could do better.”
Many said they found the comments polarizing and that they lent sympathy to Ahmadinejad.
One SIPA student who would not give her name said Bollinger lacked professionalism, “especially given the fact that he [Ahmadinejad] hadn’t even been given the chance to speak.”
“It made the audience predisposed to sort of sympathize with Ahmadinejad,” she said. “He was actually liked by the audience without uttering a word, and I think that’s where Bollinger lost his ground.”
Some also expressed their disappointment that Bollinger engaged in what they felt were personally attacked Ahmadinejad. Others doubted if the event clearly upheld free speech—the very justification for the event—especially since students could not address Ahmadinejad by themselves.
Bollinger later defended his introduction. “I did not want to risk blandness, which would have given the wrong message about how dialogue should work,” he said in an interview.
Coatsworth said he was ambivalent about the tone Bollinger’s introduction lent to the speech. “I think that it was President Bollinger’s purpose to distinguish between inviting someone to speak and endorsing what the speaker says,” Coatsworth said in an interview following the event. “On the other hand he didn’t respond to most of President Bollinger’s criticisms.”
Those in attendance reacted strongly to the event.
“It’s a question-and-answer session between the guy who would have invited Hitler and Hitler himself,” Jordan Hirsch, CC ’10 and a member of LionPAC, said, expressing anger that there was not an open microphone at the event.
Others said that no comments could change such an obstinate leader’s beliefs.
“It was a huge waste of time, and I think it was a huge mistake that they invited him,” William Nosal, CC ’08 and the treasurer of the College Republicans, said, calling Ahmadinejad’s message propagandistic.
Many charged that Ahmadinejad failed to directly answer questions. While moderating the event, Coatsworth worked to follow up on questions he felt the Iranian president had dodged. “There’s no way to change that genetic code of a politician. My job is to try to come up with questions that will sharpen the point,” Coatsworth said before the speech.
While the campus still buzzes in the aftermath of Ahmandinejad’s appearance, Columbia is left with an informal invitation to Iran. Bollinger also gave an invitation of his own, extending a visiting faculty position to Kian Tajbakhsh, the recently-released Columbia Ph.D. and scholar.
Joshua Chambers, Anastasia Gornick, and Joy Resmovits contributed to this article.
The authors of this story can be reached at news@columbiaspectator.com.
tgfyalh yemcsola zlpbwom fugyrt xksrb fkrstq bltzxy
gjyiordp wlnvtqh anujpgd wlnvfpa tkehrysnx buagxl vwrxjgd
hbagidc iqgp edlufba byeovmk hsotxz dsqhfjy kpgostiu
It is transparent that much of Bollinger’s unseemly and crude personal attack on President (not “dictator”) Ahmadnejad was motivated by his need to cover his posterior from the criticism of those who attacked him for extending the invitation to the Iranian president to speak at Columbia; and also from the Zionist that have browbeaten almost everyone to believing that the denial of Israel’s right to exists is an unforgivable and contemptable heresy.
In fact the right of a state to exist is not a concept that appears in international law, nor is it a concept that one hears applied to, say, Argentina, or Canada, or Great Britain. It is only applied to Israel and enforced by the Zionist thought police,
Those who believe Israel has a right to exists have ignored the displacement, in fact the ethnic cleansing, of the Palestinian population in 1948, who, or whose descendents, now number about 5 million and are obliged to live in squalid refugee camps in the surrounding Arab states. They deny as well that 3.5 million human beings, Palestinians specifically, have lived in a virtual prison for 40 years as their land and resources are constantly being stolen as they also face daily humiliation and economic deprivation.
The Zionist deny that Palestine is the home of the Palestinian people, and has been for the last 1300 years, yet that is the historical fact. The Zionist become irate if anyone is agnostic about the Holocaust ( I am not, but Ahmadnejad is), yet they themselves deny the “Nakbah”, the “catastrophe” in which three quarters of a million people were driven from their homes. Charges of anti-Semitism fly constantly from these people, yet they regard Arabs in general, and Palestinians in particular, as subhuman not even deserving of the right of self defense..
In addition, Israel is a state based on racial exclusiveness in which citizenship is defined only in terms of Jewishness.
Israel is unstable as it is morally constituted and is unlikely to survive for several more decades for it is founded on ethnic cleansing and must maintain 3.5 million people in bondage in order to maintain it racial purity. The world will not accept this indefinitely.
William James Martin
Department of Mathematics
University of New Orleans
Columbia graduate , Class of ‘77
i never read bunch of hillarious ignorance from someone educated as yourself,israel for year tried to help the Palestinian people, but arising terror groops(in our present the hamas) ,and in support of $$ from iran,iraq(back then)and syria they preventing any peace process, israel wants peace, look at what we did with egept and jordan......
we dealing with people in those groops that are a shame to the human race,they willing to kill inocent child and pregnent woman,animales ,no talk, just power
my friend, before you judge anything,i advise you to learn factors and reasons,scale the truth and logic in your head even, no other land IN THE WORLD shows heritage,history,archiology,thing you can see in your own eyes TODAY-that proof(and all those above matching in descriptions,places,events etc. in the bible (mine and yours)) that that land is purely jewish
reorgenize your thought my friend, open your eyes and mind to the truth
with great respect and humbleness
r.z
west palm beach,fl
In response to the following comments: "standards of courtesy or diplomatic relations people are using to condemn Bollinger" is the agreeable courtesy in any civilized society, the common courtesy that differs us from caveman , in case you wonder, this country is too young and too pround of itself to learn what is means to respect the other culture, much less trying to understand different ideas.
-Columbia grad
*************
"For the life of me I can't grasp what standards of courtesy or diplomatic relations people are using to condemn Bollinger. Rudeness? Insulting? "Not meeting Iranian expectations of courtesy"? What is this? I think it's a noblesse oblige attitude, which is to say and offensive attitude of superiority.
Ahmadinejad was not a party guest or anything like that and was not due the common courtesies associated with politeness as dictated by Miss Manners or Emily Post. Furthermore, while he is the head of state* of Iran, the United States and Iran do not have diplomatic relations as a result of the Iran hostage crisis, Ahmadinejad's alleged personal involvement in that affair notwithstanding. Had Columbia University students staged an armed revolt and taken Ahmadinejad hostage, it would merely have been tit for tat. So Ahmadinejad and his devoted but thin-skinned followers should be thankful for what courtesies the man did receive, and be thankful that he was neither taken hostage like American diplomats were in 1979, nor detained by the authorities, like Iranian-American academic Dr Haleh Esfandiari was on her last visit to Iran.
Posted by: anonymous (not verified) | September 26th, 2007 @ 11:13am "
If you take Ahmad hostage and shoot him decently then what excuse will you have to invade Iran properly and shoot all the people there? Think some more dude.
"In response to the following comments: "standards of courtesy or diplomatic relations people are using to condemn Bollinger" is the agreeable courtesy in any civilized society, the common courtesy that differs us from caveman , in case you wonder, this country is too young and too pround of itself to learn what is means to respect the other culture, much less trying to understand different ideas."
President Bollinger's remarks did not fail to meet that level of courtesy which you describe.
In contrast, there have been prominent and well-publicized examples of Iranians failing to extend "the common courtesy that differs us from caveman." The beating to death of a Canadian photo journalist at the hands of her Iranian captors comes to mind. Then there is the recent incarceration of Dr. Haleh Esfandiari of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Might I also mention the US embassy hostage crisis of 1979-1980?
In the context of those events, it appears that you are more concerned with hurting someone's feelings than you are actual crimes such as murder and kidnapping.
"In the context of those events, it appears that you are more concerned with hurting someone's feelings than you are actual crimes such as murder and kidnapping."
What about invading other country murder and kidnapping in the name of "searching for WMD"? Or maybe I should be more concerned with hurting someone's feelings than the actual crimes?
That comment assumes that only a supporter of Bush's stupid war would see Bollinger in a different light than you do. I am fairly certain that neither myself nor Bollinger have invaded another country. So when you want to get back to talking about Iran, I'll be interested in what you have to say.
Apparent you helped me make my assumption, why don't you help me with my conclusion too?
Why be cute? Just say what you mean. Convince me that the war in Iraq pertains to how polite we should all be to Ahmadinejad. Or if you were trying to make some other point, make it.
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.
Good find.
Bollinger has no principles. He says and does what is popular and kisses the asses of those who are popular at the time. I wonder what he would say about Musharraf now that Musharraf is less popular. Bollinger is a cowardly follower who hides behind wherever the majority is. He is not a courageous leader.
For the life of me I can't grasp what standards of courtesy or diplomatic relations people are using to condemn Bollinger. Rudeness? Insulting? "Not meeting Iranian expectations of courtesy"? What is this? I think it's a noblesse oblige attitude, which is to say and offensive attitude of superiority.
Ahmadinejad was not a party guest or anything like that and was not due the common courtesies associated with politeness as dictated by Miss Manners or Emily Post. Furthermore, while he is the head of state* of Iran, the United States and Iran do not have diplomatic relations as a result of the Iran hostage crisis, Ahmadinejad's alleged personal involvement in that affair notwithstanding. Had Columbia University students staged an armed revolt and taken Ahmadinejad hostage, it would merely have been tit for tat. So Ahmadinejad and his devoted but thin-skinned followers should be thankful for what courtesies the man did receive, and be thankful that he was neither taken hostage like American diplomats were in 1979, nor detained by the authorities, like Iranian-American academic Dr Haleh Esfandiari was on her last visit to Iran.
So Ahmadinejad and his devoted but thin-skinned followers should be thankful for what courtesies the man did receive, and be thankful that he was neither taken hostage like American diplomats were in 1979, nor detained by the authorities, like Iranian-American academic Dr Haleh Esfandiari was on her last visit to Iran.
By that logic, we should be grateful that on his visit, Ahmadinejad did not take time out of his busy schedule to overthrow the US government and replace it with a vicious dictatorship, arm terrorist gangs inside the US to create internal mayhem, encourage Mexico to declare war on the US and heavily arm it including with chemical weapons for use against American civilians, etc.
Bollinger's grandstanding marked him out as the kind of time-serving bureaucrat whose foremost principle is "cover your ass." It's not that his excoriation of a two-bit thug like Ahmadinejad was, in itself, all that deplorable. The problem was the violation of his own and Columbia's dignity and the sense he imparted to those watching that the entire event was a set-up and ambush. If Bollinger wanted to use Ahmadinejad as a rhetorical clay pigeon, he ought to have played no public role at the event and should have held his fire until Ahmadinejad had given his talk. One does not show onesself to be a friend of free speech by using the power of one's office to disparage the speaker as a fool, a knave, and worse, in advance of the speech. If he wanted to be part of the show, Bollinger ought simply to have called for a minimum of courtesy and restraint on the part of the audience as a show of respect for the principle of free expresssion, if not for the particular speaker. Instead, he delivered a canned diatribe of the kind that plays well in the N.Y. Post, irrespective of its accuracy (and note, please, that Bollinger was highly inaccurate when describing his guest as a "dictator", in that Ahmadinejad serves at the pleasure of the Ayatollahs who actually run Iran; he is an errand-boy for a tyrannical regime, but nowhere near the principal tyrant).
These days, it's hard to find people of deep principle in the upper ranks of university administration; alas, Columbia has had no better luck in this respect than most other institutions.
I watched Mr. Bollinger's utterly rude, juvenile, petulant and insulting introduction of his guest, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on TV. It was a very sorry spectacle and a disgrace to Columbia University. As Chris Matthews said on MSNBC's Hardball after the event, Mr. Bollinger is a "horse's arse." I think Lee should be fired as president of Columbia University.
Fil Munas
Pittsburg, IL., USA
Bollinger stooped too low for a Columbian. Why did he have to say what everone knows? This was a sticks and stone speech...
I would like to know what kind of "pressure" [reportedly] was put on him by our government
The fact that Columbia students cheered Ahmadinejad is outrageous. He was cheered when he said that Palestinians payed the price for the Holocaust. Palestinians were instrumental in bringing about the Holocaust and if they could have by now they would have created another one. The Palestinian leader Husseini constantly petitioned Hitler for a joint final solution and he assisted the Nazis in Bosnia. Arab/Palestinian Arab pressure on England was the reason England cut off the escape of Jews fleeing the Nazis with the result that many who might have lived died. The Palestinian Arabs and their fellow Arabs are responsible for numerous massacres of Jews, they would have massacred all of them and created another holocaust in 1948, in fact they made statements about what a momentous massacre it would be, but they lost.
President Ahmadinejad of Iran behaved with great dignity in the face of an unspeakbaly hostile attack by Bollinger at Colombia University. That Ahmadinejad agreed to speak at Colombia in the first place, this bastion of the US establishment, and a veritable production line of the American ruling class, is testament to the man's sense of honor and desire for peace.
Rather than Iran being on trial, it is the United States and Israel that should be on trial. Despite being blinded by false patriotism and nationalism, which many of the comments here reflect, the facts are indisputable. The United States of America is the most barbaric, savage and violent world power in human history. Its use of force to subvert human rights, sovereign governments and democracy in pursuit of its economic and strategic interests has been constant since the 1846-48 Mexican War, through to the present illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq.
In the 20th century alone the US, under both Democrat and Republican administrations, has been responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people around the world. Throughout Latin America - in Chile, Guatemala, Brazil, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama - millions have suffered at the hands of US imperialism. In southeast Asia millions in Korea, Vietnam, and Cambodia have been killed and their countries ravaged by the US. Allied to that the economic system which lies at the root of these wars and military interventions, free market capitalism, with its centre of power in Washington DC, this has laid waste to the developing world like a juggernaut of death and destruction. Six million children under the age of 5 die due to hunger and preventable disease in sub-Saharan Africa today, in the year 2007; this while the IMF and World bank continue to strangle the very same nations economically with Structural Adjustment Programs, designed to exploit their natural resources in the interests of global corporations and keep them aid dependent.
Israel is as state founded on the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people in 1948. It continues to exist at their negation up to the present day. It is a state which has violated 128 UN resolutions since 1948 with regard to its treatment of the Palestinians and its aggression towards its neighbors. It has used a veneer of exceptionalism, divine purpose and victimhood to justify such crimes and its continued existence is an abomination. Does Israel have the right to exist? Certainly not. Just as Nazi Germany did not have the right to exist. Just as apartheid South Africa did not have the right to exist.
Do the Jews have the right to exist? Absolutely. And anyone who would argue otherwise should be rightly excoriated. The only viable solution with regard to Israel-Palestine is one state in which Jews, Arabs, Christians live in peace and equality under the principle of universal human rights.
The Holocaust was undoubtedly the greatest crime of the 20th century, this is inarguable. However, it did not take place in Palestine and yet it is they who have been condemnded to pay the price for it. Ironically, therefore, the only fitting tribute to those six million who perished in the gas chambers is to actively campaign for Palestinian human rights today.
It is time to remove the scales from our eyes as to the nature of the world we live in today. The United States, Israel and the EU constitutes an unholy alliance motivated by a rapacious desire for empire and profit. It is this rapacious desire which lies at the root of a world that is currently on fire.
Is there really free speech at Columbia anyway?
I can understand why people who comment here directly on Ahmadinejad, Israel or Palestine may feel they need to post comments anonymously.
However, even those who are strongly criticizeing President Bollinger on this site, many of whom are fellow Columbia students, are doing so anonymously. I can't speak for others, but I know why I am posting anonymously.
There's certainly free speech here at Columbia when it comes to strongly criticizing leaders from outside Columbia. However, sometimes the same cannot not be said when it comes to expressing our strong views on our own school administrators' conducts..
Antiwar Protesters Decry Handling of Iran
By Michael E. Ruane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 26, 2007; A11
A group of antiwar protesters demonstrated outside the
White House yesterday to condemn what they termed the
government's "demonization" of Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and said they think the Bush
administration is preparing the public for an attack
on Iran.
The 25 protesters, most of them from the Troops Out
Now Coalition, walked in a circle on the sidewalk
north of the White House, chanting "Get out of Iraq!
Stay out of Iran!" and holding signs that read: "Don't
Terrorize Iran" and "Don't Appease Israel."
They dismissed the criticisms this week of the Iranian
president, saying the United States had criticized
Saddam Hussein before invading Iraq.
"There's a hysteria in the media emanating from New
York . . . against the president of Iran," coalition
spokesman Larry Holmes said. "We're here in response
to what's been going on in New York: the Columbia
debate, the front pages of the tabloids, the
electronic media, demonizing the president. And we
know what it's about.
"We know that the government is in very advanced
stages of planning for a war in Iran. They've got a
naval armada" in the Persian Gulf, he said. "The
Pentagon's got its plans. And now we see the
psychological preparation."
The Iranian president has been criticized this week
for questioning the Holocaust and saying there are no
homosexuals in Iran.
Referring to Ahmadinejad's controversial statements,
Holmes said: "I don't think it's relevant. I think
that's an interesting philosophical discussion about
theology, about social views, that you have over
coffee."
Yesterday's protest is part of week-long antiwar rally
that will culminate Saturday in a march scheduled to
begin at noon from a coalition camp on the west side
of the U.S. Capitol.
Spokesmen said the events are aimed mainly at stopping
the war in Iraq and what they called injustice at
home. The march route was being worked out, organizers
said. The National Park Service said the group's
permit suggests that between 2,000 and 5,000 marchers
are expected.
"The focus here is stop the war at home and abroad,"
coalition spokesman Dustin Langley said Monday. "We
think there's a real connection between the fact that
they're spending $750 million a day on the war and
people here die because they don't have access to
health care."
The march comes after a large antiwar protest Sept. 15
and precedes an antiwar, anti-global warming rally
scheduled for next month. The coalition says there
have been numerous marches because the war has not
ended and because antiwar groups might have different
targets.
"Repeated protests are even more important than
whether we get half a million people out here,"
Langley said. "It may just be important to be here and
just dog them because they're lying to us."
The most telling fact about the failure of Islamic society is that about 33% of all Nobel prizes in science and technology are won by Jews (12 million worldwide), and virtually none are won by Muslims(1.6 billion worldwide).
That means Jews are overrepresented by 3,300 times. Now to say it is from Genetics would be racist, because no group is 3,300% smarter than any other group. The real explanation lies in the oppresion of personal freedom and liberty in Islamic societies.
Of course blind knee jerk Islamic spinmasters will come up with every excuse under the sun besides the truth, because I know, the truth must hurt.
But since Islamic society is working so well, why not impose this failure on the world? Ahmedinidjad and the Hidden Imam, combined with some Iranian nukes, sure will. let the excuses begin !!
since jews are lousy good b-ballers, what does that tell ya? that you're a racist.
When you wrestle with a pig you both get dirty, but the pig loves it.
According to Ahmeddenijad both Israel and Homosexuality do not exist, in his neighborhood. He is beginning to sound a lot like Hitler. (He looks like a morph of Hitler and Charles Manson)
I admit that: for the first time, even at Columbia University, I have felt comfortable learning and openly expressing my opinions on many different perspectives on Israel and Palestine. For the first time, I have sat in Butler library and researched the history of the conflict from a wide range of documents and analyses. For the first time, I have read newspaper articles from papers around the world to hear a plethora of perspectives on issues that affect our global community. For the first time, I have read transcripts of a UN conference instead of just relying on the biased snippets I get in the New York Times and (somewhat less biased) on CNN.com. What can we do to keep our community energized and continue the interest in our nation and global politics that we saw these last few days? How can I participate in ways that will make me feel like I am contributing to the sound economic, social and political future of America?
Bollinger succeeded in two very distinct ways:
1. He showed what a coward he is and how badly he handled this from the beginning. The invitation should have never been extended and, after the Hitler remarks, he was backed into a corner with his only recourse being an ambush. Any leader with an ounce of character would have rescinded the offer once it was exposed for the outlandish blunder that it was.
2. He incited a calculating, ruthless dictator who is already responsible for the deaths of hundreds, maybe thousands, of our sons and daughters serving this country. Bollinger gave him additional ammo for his hatred and will only serve to embolden his terrorist followers. This psycho sees it as his personal responsibility to bring about the chaos that will, in his eyes, hasten the death of Jews and Christians worldwide. He wants a nuke. When he gets it, he will not hesitate to use it.
Congrats Columbia! I look forward to your next speaker. I believe the topic is morality and the orator is one Orenthal James Simpson?
The anonymous comment below is simply a non-truth. No where in any Islamic tradition do Muslims believe that the Mahdi will return to kill Christians and Jews. "Victory" implies that all people will see the truth at that time in the last days when Imam Mahdi arrives with Jesus. And yes, Muslims hold Jesus Christ in very high regard.
A question for Bollinger: Ahmadinejad has not caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians as our own president of the United States has done in Iraq. In fact he has done nothing that compares even close to that. Would Bollinger introduce George Bush in as rude and tasteless a manner as he did for Iran's elected President?
Left wing lie:
"Ahmadinejad has not caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians as our own president of the United States has done in Iraq."
I guess it depends on your definition of "caused"?
Iran arms, trains, and directs Shiite terrorist death squads that murder thousands of Sunni civilians. But the Left doesn't blame poor Iran, no! it is Bush's fault.
I'm an Ivy League graduate; I can't believe how uneducated, uninformed and illogical kids are these days. What a joke.
Was it rude and tasteless that Ahemdinedad referred to the State of Israel as the "Zionist Entity", knowing that many in the audience were Jewish ? Or don't Jews or the State of Israel count in your or Ahemdinejad's view ?
Jews are great ... but colonizing Palestine is not. Given that we view Israel as a colonial state (with settlers etc like in the wild west) which continues to grab land from the Palestinians, we can't but help to view the current form of Israel as not a good entity. Its no fun to be colonized, just ask the American Indian. I think no Middle Easterner would object to Jews being handed a huge peice of land elsewhere, like say all of the US or something. They just don't like being kicked out of their own homes. But again, Jews are great amazing people. I totally understand their desire for a homeland, and they deserve one.
Why is it that when the Ottoman Turks conquered the Middle East, that was not Colonial or Imperial, but when England defeated the Turks in 1918, it was ? Isn't "Palestinian land" a very racist concept? Does it mean Jews are not welcome there ? Is that like white only neighborhoods ? You have your Islamic Republic of Iran, which means Islam is the official religion. Is that good ? What about the Bhaii ? Or atheists ?
Your analogy with American Indians is very trenchant. The Indians were not as innocent as you might think. What were their boundaries ? Was all of America off limits to the White Man ? And what did Indians do to other tribes that occupied hunting or other land that another tribe wanted ? The answer was brutal slaughter and war by the Indians amongst themselves.
So Jews set up a country on land given to them by the United Nations in 1948, after being given permission by the mandatory power, England from 1918 to 1947 to settle there. Since there was no country there, it was perfectly legal.
Sorry, but the Israeli Jews aren't going anywhere especially not to the sea or Europe, or even America. Persia will vanish before that happens. The 1.5 billion Muslims will have to be a little generous and solve the so called Palestinian problem by giving from their vast wealth of 28 Islamic countries with billions of hectacres , not taking from the tiny only Jewish State of Israel.
But we know what this is really all about. Racist Muslims do not want a Jew state in their neighborhood. That is racism.
First off, yes it was imperial when the Turks conquered the Middle East. And if they were building Turkish settlements to replace the indiginous populations (which I don't believe they did) then that would be colonial as well.
Secondly, you've just revealed that you think colonizing the American Indian was a good thing. And in fact, that you think Native Americans were rascist for wanting the White Man to leave them alone. Sure the Indians had wars with each other, as Europeans did, that doesn't mean they deserved genocide, or were rascist for resisting.
Palestine had a 5% native Jewish population during the early part of this century. Those Jews were welcome there as were Christians and any other people whose families had lived there for centuries. White Jews from Europe, however, led a campaign to grab more than 50% of Palestinian land to turn it into their present day rascist state of Israel. They were new comers who attacked and killed Palestinian families in an effort to force them off the land. It was no different than what any other colonial settling power has done in history.
Even African and Arab Jews who live in Israel have complained about the Zionist state's entrenched rascism. It is no wonder that Israel was such good pals with another rascist country, Aparthied South Africa. Or perhaps you believe the blacks in that country were rascist for resisting their oppressors. You probably think Mandela was rascist. May God help you.
If you want generosity, don't go stealing and murdering. If you want some land, ask your western friends who sit on the largest plots in the world to give you some. Muslims are not rascist for resisting the colonization of their land. Rather its the Jewish rascist colonists who are.
Nicely done!
Good post, but small correction. Jews did not start to live in Israel from 1918 on. There has been a constant presence since the Roman destruction and the Crusader destruction, but the new influx from Europe, which resulted in city building (cf. Tel Aviv) on purchased land and uninhabited marshes and desert started in the 1880's.
Although many European Jews did settle in Israel, one of the first settlements was the Yemenite Jewish settlement of 1882 in Silwan. More than half of the Jews in Israel today are of immediate Middle Eastern heritage, e.g., from Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, Morocco, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, etc.
Excellent
Read the events that followed the break-up of the Ottoman Empire dimwit - that territory was legislated to Palestine according to a mandate proposed by the United Nations - Its called the UN Partition Plan of 1947 - It's got nothing to do with being racist - its a MANDATED TERRITORY. If your father purchased a house and has the legal papers to it and I decide on coming and taking over your house - are you gonna be a racist trying to protect your land??
SHEESH!!! - go read some history and don't embarrass yourself.
Sorry dimwit. Read your history. THE RACIST ARABS REJECTED THE PARTITION PLAN!!!!! I HOPE YOU ARE NOT FROM COLUMBIA. THAT WOULD BE A DISGRACE.
Partition plan ... hmm ..yeah. So the Jews, who comprised less than 8% of the population in Palestine at the time were to receive 60% of the land. They then planned to ship in foreign white Jews from Europe to fill their section and push out the Palestinians. Sounds like a sweet deal for the Arabs to me! So dumb to reject a gift like that. "We're going to take 60% of your home, and you better like it!" You can't continue to fool the world forever Zionist Nazis. You are fundamentally RASCIST to the core.
I have say a few things:
1. I don't agree with most of the things Ahmedinejad thinks, but I do support universal academic freedom of speech. I am surprised that most of the news channels did not even cover this perspective, they went for the dramatic protests.
2. The protests were justified under freedom of assembly too and I respect their views.
3. Our president's timing was off, though he was right. It was inconsiderate of him to say such things to a man that he invited to the campus himself. No matter what kind of a cruel dictator he is, there is a certain decorum observed when talking to politicians. On President Bollinger's defense though, I would like to say, I did observe that he did not look too happy with his own harsh words.
4. "Uneducated" was not the right word used to accuse a man who holds a PhD. Ignorant, in denial, etc could have been better substitutes.
I don't think Mr. Bollinger did anything wrong - Mr. Ahmadinejad knew full well he was coming somewhere where he wasn't going to be well received. Columbia University isn't the U.N., nor is it a government building or public square in Iran where everybody is supposed to applaud and wave at him, and he has thugs who attack and kill anyone who doesn't. He could have refused the invitation to the university if he wanted. He is a petty and cruel dictator. He played a major part of the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Iran back in 1979 (why that wasn't treated like an act of war, I'll never understand). He is a delusional kook who governs his country as a totalitarian theocracy where women are considered property of their husbands, and where women are treated as having done something wrong when they are raped. A few posts back (maybe it was on another part of this blog, I'm not sure) someone said "he is an elected leader of a sovereign nation" - please! If he's elected, he was the only choice in an election where everybody had to mark their ballots in plain view without even an opportunity to do a write-in. I could go on for pages and pages, but Mr. Bollinger said what he had to say, and he gave Mr. Ahmadinejad plenty more time to speak.
Why are there so many posts that say "poor Mr. Ahmadinejad" ? Why do people condemn Mr. Bollinger's remarks? I'm glad Ahmadinejad did come to speak at Columbia so he could be criticized - something he never has to face in his own country but something leaders in the Western World and Japan face almost every day. It's time he was put in his place too, if only for a few hours. No armed thugs around to shoot Mr. Bollinger or anybody else who says the wrong thing to the idiotic rambling coward.
If George W Bush came to campus and Mr. Bollinger criticized him before he began a speech, I'm guessing most people would be laughing and making jokes about it on this board.
My man, you have a very active imagination. Have you ever been to Iran? A place which has more women in their parliament than we do in our congress. You believe there are thugs who kill you for not waving and applauding? Thats funny, cuz I know plenty of Iranians who don't applaud or wave to Presidents of their country and have never been bothered. (Where as here you get tasered just for asking a question :-).
Come off it guy, Iran is a young country which had to throw off a tyrant (the shah) who we placed on its back. Do you know how many thousands of Iranians we killed through supporting the Shah? Are we still so mad about the embassy thing after we did all that? How would we feel if another country took down our government and placed a bloody dictator in charge of us.
What was the U.S. or France like in their early days? We had slavery and the French had a whole number of other oppressions. Iran just recently had a revolution and has been dealing with the worlds super power trying to annihilate it from day one. They're not perfect but they're definitely not as nasty as we were in our first years. In fact, we're still oppressing and killing people in various parts of the world. Give them some time, at least as much as we've given ourselves.
As for women, they are not considered property in Iran. You should definitely visit and see for yourself. They are actually quite respected, probably more so than in the U.S. where women's organizations have determined that 1 out of every 4 women are raped or molested.
Ahmedinejad began his "speech" with an ominous prayer:
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR):" Oh, God, hasten the arrival of Imam al-Mahdi and grant him good health and victory and make us his followers and those to attest to his rightfulness."
In case you did not know it, Imam Al-Mahdi is the hidden Imam that will murder all the Xtians and Jews and secure the world for Islam. Thats what he meant by "victory", and "his followers".
Congratulations.
you just landed yourself a career with Fox news.
Its too bad that some of us are sadly so unaware. Our government supported Saddam Hussein while he was killing hundreds of thousands in the 80s, we placed a Dictator on top of the Iranian people (the Shah) who also killed many innocent civilians, we give our support to real dictatorships like those in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and we have also propped up rascist regimes like Israel and Apartheid South Africa. In Iraq, our presence has lead to the deaths of almost 1 million people. Why all this venom then toward the President of Iran? They have done nothing even remotely close to the atrocities that our own government has committed since our inception in the days of slavery and colonial genocide.
Ahmadinejad's only point in terms of the holocaust is that freedom of speech is not necessarily a reality in the west. People can be jailed in Europe simply for saying that the numbers involved in the holocaust have been inflated (which they have been in order to be used as a propoganda tool for the Zionist agenda). But at any rate, the holocaust was committed by white Christian westerners, and not by Muslim Middle Easterners. So the point which follows is why do many western people these days now use the Holocaust to justify the colonization of Palestine? What did the Palestinians do to anyone?These days the holocaust is used as a tool for oppression of others, which is a travesty for any and all who lost their lives to the Nazis.
Mr. Ahmadinejad has never called for the destruction of Israel, which till today western media love to say in order to make it appear that he wants to throw nuclear weapons at it. His view has always been that he hopes one day the rascist Israeli regime will fall and Palestinians will be free of its oppression.
His views are completely in synch with the majority of the population of the Middle East and Muslim world. I sincerely hope that one day, western governments and institutions will seek to better understand that perspective rather than to simply label and judge it as something it is not.
Mr. Bollinger judged Ahmadinejad's views before hearing them first hand. He wanted Ahmadinejad to appear as something he is not. In doing so he has shown that he lacks the open mind and un-biasedness of a true academic. He should be dismissed.
Well said for the most part, it's really all about the stronger over the weaker. I agree. But don't talk about dismissing Bollinger, he made a mistake. I think he's fully aware of his blunder, if you see him around campus, you will know what I am talking about.
Bollinger's timing was off. He should've let Ahmedinijad speak first, grilled him with tough questions, and THEN blasted him.
In spite of the praise of free speech, it appears that few people actually listened to any answers [including the reporters, who misplaced the following quote].
It was when Ahmadinejad was asked whether he favors the destruction of Israel that he responded by advocating a referendum in which "Jewish Palestinians, Christian Palestinians, Muslim Palestinians, ... choose their future for themselves".
So, like the answer or not, he did answer the question. Rather than just demanding a yes or no answer, Coatsworth, if actually interested in the opportunity for exchange, might have asked a specific follow up questions, such as, "what do you expect the result of such a referendum would be" or "who exactly would be allowed to vote in such a referendum" or "if the referendum supported the continued existence of Israel would you oppose further terrorism" or some other question engaging Ahmadinejad on the question of the fate of the Palestinians, or even whether terror helps or hurts their cause.
At least Ahmadinejad didn't say "Don't tase me bro"... or pull the crap that Britney Spears did.... that being said, there almost certainly is homosexuality in Iran, and there was a Holocaust.... he's wishy washy when it comes to expressing his beliefs in front of a skeptical audience in "Kaffiristan". LOL.
That being said, I wouldn't have minded having Hitler over and letting some rabbis ask him some tough questions. (Nobody from Naturei Karta, though.)
I have many friends in the Orthodox Jewish community. I was surprised, but certainly content, to hear them immediately state that Bollinger's comments were rude and unacceptable. If even THEY felt that way, I am certain that my intense discontent with Columbia University as I listened to his speech was justified. Furthermore, if his intent was to salvage the Jewish and conservative supporters of the University by that inappropriate tirade of his, they apparently are more intelligent than he realized.
You must be mistaken. We don't have any Jews in this country. "I do not know who told you that."
That was a comment about homosexuals that I am told has been mistranslated. He said something of that nature tough. Iran has 25000 Jews who prefer living in Iran rather than leaving it.
Iran does have 25,000 Jews who remain there (as part of a 2,500 year old Jewish community). Many of those remaining do prefer to live there; but make no mistake that they are second-class Dhimmis. (Leaving Iran now is quite difficult; family members left behind are subject to persecution, property is not easy to transfer. Being a Jew (or a Bahai or a Christian) in Iran is like being an African-American in the Jim Crow South.) Here is an example:
"The Associated Press
Published: September 9, 2006
NEW YORK A group of Jewish Iranians who say their missing relatives were kidnapped and tortured by the Iranian government have sued the country's former president, delivering the summons to him directly while he was visiting the United States.
The seven families, who reside in Los Angeles and Israel, say their relatives were arrested at different times between 1994 and 1997 as they tried to leave Iran by crossing into Pakistan."
As you probably know, however, most of Iran's Jews have voted with their feet and left the county; many after 1948 to Israel (Israel's disgraced former President (before Peres) is Iranian) and the vast majority after the fall of the Shah in 1979. Suburban New York and Los Angeles populations of Iranian Jews each vastly surpass the number of Jews left in Iran. So whether the current Jews "prefer" living there or not - and many do love their country if not their oppressive government - they are still being oppressed.
Regardless of what one feels for the president of Iran, the performance of Mr. Bollinger at yesterday's event was a national disgrace and complete embarrassment. As I listened to this man pile on insults and rude comments for some 20 minutes, all I could think of was the number of potential alumni donors who must have been threatening to withhold their big dollar donations to Columbia, not to mention all of the political elite who had threatened cutting Columbia off from the grant gravy train, and this was his grand rescue attempt.
In 20 minutes, Mr. Bollinger managed to do what I couldn't think possible - make people sympathetic towards a world leader who is also a despot. Bollinger's verbal swipes were condescending not only to his guest, but also to the rest of us. Did he really think the average American did not realize these things already? Did he really feel his tirade would somehow create a sudden realization on the part of the president of Iran that he's been wrong all along? Guess what - America wasn't watching to see Mr. Bollinger attempt to salvage the PR complexities he created for himself and his donor base. Yesterday wasn't about him.
If this is the best Columbia University has to offer the country in its national conversation about Iran, do us a favor and don't bother next time, or perhaps you could invite Bill O' Reilly to do the introductions. At least with him, we start with the premise of lowered expectations.
Very well said, I thought it was funny too. But yes, the introduction backfired and Ahmedinejad seemed to carry himself well. I am upset that he got to point a finger at us for that intro. He said, in Iran, when we invite a guest, we respect them.
Imagine if Bollinger had gotten up and drawn a cartoon of Mohammed. We could have had a Jihad against Columbia and mass riots in the "Muslim world". Now that would have been something to behold!
Ah, you exhibit such ignorance and pettiness.
In what way does the comment exhibit ignorance? Are you suggesting that such a reaction would be inconsistent with what has been observed in the recent past?
Before aligning to the bellicosity of Bush and Cheney, Bollinger should have thought twice the consequences of his irresponsible speech for the international credibility of American academia - after this, we will be considered next to Foxnews. It's clear that Iran doesn't have the most democratic regime, but who think seriously that American soldiers (and the National Guard!) can wage a new war?
What I found most telling about this incident was how warmly Ahmadinejad was greeted by the audience. Compare and contrast that with how these same folks would have welcomed a fellow American, but one on the opposite side of the political aisle, like let's say Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, or Karl Rove.
Think they would have been so warmly welcomed? No, I don't either.
As such, what does that say about this event and our culture that a genocidal, anti-Semitic maniac is more endeared by college students than Republican administration officials?
1. The republicans are doing something obviously stupid
2. Bollinger is a total asshole who turned the tide of sympathy towards such a abominable man like Ahmadinezad
Where were the Columbia signs normally on the lecterns?
Is it normal for an invited guest to be excoriated the way?
Today I came into the campus and found Columbia at extreme quiet. It's very strange not be able to hear people talking/debating with each other on their view points after the event, compared to the active student groups before. I feel a little bit lonely after the "show/bash/festival" is over. We examine the lives elsewhere with scrutiny, we invited someone from afar, we slapped them in their face publicly to show them what a civilized sociaty and a great education have to offer, then we walk way, forgeting and forgiving ourselves. I feel deeply disappointd and shameful for the university that I've been proud of, for its weakness to voice its independent thinking and criticism. We used to be really good at that.
Why are you so surprised? Most of the people on this campus are kids. There is nothing wrong with that. A clear majority of the Columbia students that I have known are not unlike those that you would find at any other major university. Their parents expect them to do well in school and to get a good job after they graduate. Is this on a par with the sort of pressure that our soldiers in Iraq experience? Of course not, but I think that most Columbia students recognize their good fortune. To be sure, there are some really foolish students at Columbia, and this is now obvious to the entire country. They are a problem at Columbia in the same way that drunken frat guys are a problem at some Big 10 schools, but our fools present a much more serious challenge to Columbia than drunken frat guys do at a school like Penn State. Why? It is because in the case of the former the behavior in question finds significant support among the faculty in some departments. If you want to understand the real problem at Columbia, then you need to look at how the postcolonialism/literary theory/bullshit crowd has been allowed to gain power at Columbia. Will this continue? I think that some people expected that things like the Sokal Affair of 1996 would expose this part of academia for what it is. Clearly this did not happen at Columbia, at least not in a significant way. Part of the problem might be attributed to the fact that scientists, along with other academics who respect rational thought, tend not to make as much noise beyond their research area (perhaps because they are too busy doing work). Maybe Columbia's latest foot-in-mouth-head-up-asshole move to invite Ahmadinejad to campus will prove to be the turning point. I'll believe it when I see it.
As a student, that hasn't been my experience. I've definitely had a lot of conversations with my friends about Ahmadinejad etc. in the last 24 hours. Maybe the campus isn't abuzz -- we all have work to do and classes to attend, after all -- but people are definitely talking about it.
As a student living on campus, all I have been hearing is people talking about the speech. But no one was giving a speech or anything. Very few student were giving speeches in the rally. It was more of a quiet protest from the student side compared to the general rally.
That is so true - one would expect that the issue would take atleast 2-3 days to die down - if not weeks - and here it died the very next day. I felt like I was part of a movie festival - and everything was over once the award ceremony took place.
Bollinger punctured the balloon with his buffoonery. Everyone is ashamed of what happened yesterday and so it's all quite.
Ashamed that we have such a retard as Bollinger running the school administration. Thank God that we have a prudent dean running the college and the academic affairs.
Bollinger's personal attacks managed to turn Ahmadenijad into a sympathetic figure. Bollinger's "introduction" was self-serving, arrogant, and completely unnecessary. And where was the "Columbia" sign that is usually affixed to the podium? It seems that Columbia (and Bollinger) wanted the benefits of the appearance (to get publicity and take the high ground on free speech) while simultaneously distancing itself and insulting its invited guest. From Bollinger's remarks, you would think that they were forced to host the Iranian President, when in fact it was Columbia and Bollinger himself who had invited Ahmadinejad. Removing the "Columbia" signs certainly made it seem that the administration was ashamed or afraid of its own decision, rather than owning up to it.
As a result of this debacle, Bollinger looks like the crazy one (or at least immature), Ahmadenijad will have some sympathy (especially at home), and the U.S. continues to look like a bully in the eyes of the world. Nice work.
Bollinger's "introduction" was self-serving, arrogant, and completely unnecessary.
The same could be said of the invitation itself.
To all those who find fault in Bollinger's introduction:
Aside from the arguable impropriety of assailing this invited speaker prior to a debate, can any of you credibly disagree with what Bollinger said? Enumerating Ahmadinejad's numerous (and documented) violations of civil rule, just behavior, and empirical logic does not strike me as inappropriate. Further, I find that all of the ad hominem attacks were equally based in fact. Is Ahmadinejad not a cruel and dangerous dictator, as demonstrated at the very least by the crimes perpetrated against the very citizens of Iran (and further by the evidence of his proxy assault on our troops in Iraq)?
Was his skewed perspective not clearly demonstrated in his comments on stage (although it stands to reason that homosexuals cannot be murdered in a country devoid of homosexuality)? And as Bollinger had preemptively accused, Ahmadinejad did not, in fact, answer many of the pressing questions posed to him. Perhaps you consider semantic maneuvering to be intellectual courage. I do not.
Despite the ambiguous answers and obvious (as well as expected) propaganda, I do think the debate was productive and valid. It was refreshing to finally see the man challenged, and not mollified, by those who would ask for answers from him. Though most of his remarks were able to elude the crux of each question, admissions were made even by his failure to respond (for example his refusal to answer to Iran’s intentions regarding the destruction of Israel).
How would you more amiably describe Holocaust denial than Bollinger did (“either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated”)? Hostile though these comments were, their tone does not undermine their validity, truth, or gravity.
As President Bollinger has said, the purpose of this meeting was not to afford Ahmadinejad the luxury of free speech that we enjoy here, but rather for us to benefit from that very right. None of us appreciates hearing a tyrant call our country a terrorist state, nor are we pleased by a refusal to recognize the Holocaust or further vocalization of a stubborn opposition to preventing the spread of nuclear arms. But by forcing ourselves to confront such a mind, mentality, and megalomaniac, we are better prepared to engage the world and its many troubling realities.
Like many of my friends, I was very proud of the way President Bollinger and Dean Coatsworth conducted themselves and the debate. I am as proud to be an alum of Columbia today as the day I graduated, and I feel sorry for those who are embarrassed by a man who challenged an aptly labeled “petty and cruel dictator.”
The issue it at hand is not whether one agrees or disagrees with Bollinger's crowd-pleasing rhetoric. Most of the audience (myself included) was in full agreement with Bollinger's snide comments. But calling an unpopular, foreign leader a "petty and cruel dictator" is an easy pot-shot. These comments are so banal as to not need public expression. His comments were uttered merely to further his politically correct credentials and shield himself from indirect association with the Iranian president's beliefs.
Bollinger's actions are decidedly negative for the university and our country in general. Firstly, it degrades scholarly discourse by opening the door to other nut jobs with ludicrous, baseless arguments-- all in the name of freedom of speech. Should Columbia invite all extremists in order to be "better prepared to engage the world and its many troubling realities"? I have a hard time believing that anyone (especially the Iranian president) is a more enlightened individual as a result of this scherade.
Secondly, the University has become a pawn in Ahmadinejad's agenda. Iranian media will most certainly present this speech as an act of courageous expression-- standing up to American imperialism and challenging our dogmatic beliefs. Those who preach hatred, holocaust denial, and the downfall of the US, will feel increasingly confident now that their views are given the legitimacy of an ivy league hearing. Bollinger's tactlessness and Ahmadinejad's apt response will only further the Iranian president's standing.
That many at Columbia are "proud" of how they handled themselves is shameful and demonstrates that the ivy league has lost much intellectual integrity. It reflects the smugness of a self-righteous student body/faculty who think they are civilized because they promote free speech, yet refuse to critically examine the ulterior motives behind this carefully orchestrated, and self-serving media stunt.
I doubt that Secretary Rice receives this kind of "rap sheet" introduction about Bush Administration by her hosts when she is invited to speak at universities in non-ally nations -- and she speaks at universities worldwide frequently. President Bollinger's behavior reflects poorly on Columbia.
President Bollinger proved himself to be a disgrace to Columbia University and the academic establishment by his reckless invitation to President Ahmadinejad and frivolous name calling. By taking the issue of "free speech" to its illogical extreme, he has single-handedly devalued his university into a Jerry Springer style media circus-- all for his own shameless self-promotion and personal political agenda.
Firstly, a university's primarily goals are the expansion of human knowledge and the education of its students. It should not be intended as an open forum for any extremist opinion, regardless of scholarly merit. An educational institution which has pretensions to standards and quality should use its better judgement in selecting speakers who communicate rigorous arguments, cite evidence, and can respond to questioning. Bollinger decided to disregard any academic standards, all for the sake of protecting the first amendment. Should a university that aspires to the highest echelons of human scholarship follow such principles?
President Bollinger should also be villified for his arrogant, self-righteous critique of the president Ahmadinejad during his introduction. It is the height of hypocrisy to invite someone to speak in the name of "tolerance", "open dialogue", "freedom of expression", then denounce him and express intolerance before he has uttered a word. These cheap insults were performed so that Bollinger can highlight his politically correct views and behave like an "enlightened" dissident chastising a despot. This cheap ploy was nothing short of a shameless, self-serving media stunt.
If Columbia University wants to return to its position as an esteemed institution of higher learning, it should promptly remove this silly man from power. Hopefully then, Columbia will focus its attention on scholarship, not hyberbolic rhetoric.
You have my vote about Bollinger's removal. He is a disgrace to the institution and its ideals. When I heard that Pres. Ahmadinejad was invited to speak at Columbia, against all the bad publicity and protests, I was proud to be an alum of such an institution. But the moment Bollinger opened his mouth yesterday, I was ashamed to wear my Columbia shirt. He is a disgrace. Oh yeah, I said that already.
I agree. I must add though that it appears President Bollinger did not trust his students' ability to think for themselves and felt it necessary to prep. their brains on how they were supposed to be thinking before his guest's speech. This attack was inacceptable in that it came from the host of the event. If it had come from the students themselves (as per the forum), it would have had some validity and weight. Maybe Bollinger feared that his institution fails to properly prepare the students to think critically and with discernment, so he had to spell it out for them before giving Ahmadinejad his opportunity to mold their impressionable minds. The whole event shows a lack of respect all around. Lack of respect for the citizens of our country and any defenders of liberty worldwide to invite an individual, under the pretext of free speech, who uses his position of leadership to suppress free speech. Lack of respect for the guest by insulting him before giving him a chance to execise his free speech. Lack of respect for the students by implying their inability to respond appropriately to the guest and evaluate his free speech for themselves.
Twice now Bollinger has shown signs of a coward.
First, he hid from the media after the Minutemen incident, and instead let his students go on national TV to defend themselves. A leader would have shouldered the pressure and protected his community.
This time he caved into media and political pressure and insulted a guest he invited - just because that was the easy thing to do.
Bollinger lacks leadership quality to be the president of Columbia.
- Columbia College student
I still love democracy and freedom, but no one, no troops, protect me but my own common sense and skepticism. That is all I have learned at Columbia and all that will save me from being torn apart by the cynicism of the land of the free and the idiocy of this democracy.
I'm sure that you have a really interesting point, but could you try to write in such a way that you don't sound like a glue-sniffing retard?
I am re-posting here. This is my response to Prof. Foner's op-ed piece mentionned by another writer. I think packaging these controversial ideas and moral dillemmas as challenges to "free speech" is academic sleight-of-hand. Here's my response to Prof. Foner:
In Prof. Foner's roster of "heroes of American liberty" who were deemed too "dangerous, extreme or simply unpopular" for their free speech rights, I was amazed to see Margaret Sanger's name described one who "went to jail for distributing information about birth control. " Well noble as that may sound, it is a bite that spins and misrepresents history. Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist. And believe me she had her free speech rights. An activitist, she authored many pamphlets and books, among them "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" and "Birth Control the True Eugenics" ; she went across the country, speaking and spreading her ideas. It was only when she broke the law that she was jailed. And just what was the content of her "free speech" anyway? It was about mandated birth control to purify the "breeding stock" and remove the "bad strains." Included in her list of the "unfit" were "the shiftless, ignorant and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South." Also included were the poor, uneducated who had large families -- well you get the idea. In other words, your hero of American liberty would have taken our civil liberties away. And though in my opinion, she WAS too dangerous for her free speech rights. she had them, nevertheless. But don't make her a heroine of liberty. Please.
just a simple question. How many of the snot nosed liberal and left wing nut jobs who inhabit your school have ever served in the US military which gaurantees your freedom to invite terrorists to speak while our troops are dying at his behest?
One more simple question - how many of the snot nosed neo-con ideologues who lied us into the war (that is killing our troops that you mentioned), and their executive branch enablers (draft-dodger in chief, Vice President "other priorities" Cheney) have ever served in the US military? Anyway Bush's flaks have argued repeatedly that Cheney's (non) service record is irrelevant to the question of US policy. Who are we to disagree?
Actually quite a few; but typically they are in the graduate schools. There are also a variety of different political perspectives at the University - not all are stot nosed liberal and left wing nut jobs. There are probably as many of those here as there are at any major diverse school in the country, but a lot fewer than you think. I opposed the invitation to Ahmadinejad - primarily because I don't think you give a nut job (of any wing) a platform to spew craziness, even if you clobber him first.
I do note, however, that the United States government has allowed him into the country and has security agents protecting him, a sponsor of many murders of American troops. I also note that 60 Minutes and other news programs have interviewed him, which is an invite as much as Columbia's is.
I note, as well, that, unlike the 60 Minutes interview, everyone is talking about the crazy statements that Ahmadinejad made at Columbia. The appearance has harmed any reputation that he may have had and has made a larger number of people aware of his insanity than any TV show could do.
Finally, thank you for your military service. You are right - you are protecting our safety, which, in a fashion, protects our right to not be like Iran (which I presume you don't want us to be like even though you seem to think that nut jobs should not be allowed to do this unless they serve in the military).
If you're allowed to voice an opinion this ridiculously ignorant and flat out sad, then anything's possible, man. Be a good boy and follow orders. It's clearly all you're good for. Must suck to be so damn insecure about yourself. Am I "the enemy" now?
Bollinger discredited himself and the university. Rather than giving an introduction which was critial and scholarly, he acted like he just bumped into the Iranian president on the street corner with no time to prepare. There is much to be critical about with respect to Iran and their policies bit it was overshadowed by ivy league rehtoric and grand standing. Finally, while inviting the Iranian president was a victory for free speech, closing down the discussion before it even started was not. I have read a lot about Columbia having a lot to be proud of today, I find just the opposite.
Doctoral Student, Teachers College
Bollinger proved himself to be a total buffoon and an embarassment to us all. I'm a conservative Republican, so I'd be just as happy Ahmadinejad met the same fate as Saddam Hussein, but I also think guests should be treated with respect and decorum once invited. Only a cad invites a man to speak and then attacks him, saying he's the face of evil, etc. Bollinger was clearly responding to media criticism by trying to be a macho Tough Guy, which he's not, and he ended up with his foot in his mouth.
Meanwhile I'm embarassed for my school and for our guest. Ahmenidejad was right in declaring, "In Iran, we don’t think it’s necessary before the speech is even given, to come in with a series of claims." Bollinger might not respect the man or respect his views, but he ought to respect the fact that Ahmadinejad is a world leader and official guest. And then there's the matter of the black backdrop for the presentation, where usually "Columbia University - World Leaders Forum" would be written prominently behind the speaker.
If Bollinger is going to invite a foreign dignitary to campus to speak, Bollinger owes it to the guest that he be treated courteously and hospitably. If Bollinger can't show proper diplomatic tact, then the guest shouldn't be invited. Shame on Columbia, shame on Bollinger.
MBA 2006
I don't even know where to begin and how to phrase this, so I'll just be brief and to the point. Please don't confuse my words as being support for Ahmadinejad. I disagree fundamentally with a magnitude of his believes on a grand scale. Good, disclaimer finished.
Columbia University and its president have done the unthinkable. Under the pretense of debate and the free flow of ideas at an Ivy League University, Columbia has without question escalated tensions and frankly made a mockery of our "top" academic institutions. Lee Bollinger's words for a foreign head of state, the laughter of the audience, the boos of the crowd are absolutely surreal; do you recall months ago when 5 high school students didn't receive diplomas when people cheered during their graduation? I don't have to explain the irony. Well maybe I do, you've proven yourselves to be so very disingenuous that I really don't care what the history of your University is, or what you claim to stand for. True colors are waving in the breeze.
Do you feel that you've facilitated a debate that will have any positive outcomes? Do you think the average Iranian with no concern for global affairs will be more or less inclined to take note? Do you picture a positive reaction? Do you realize you've embarrassed our country and mocked our own concept of free speech?
If your goal was to escalate tensions during an extremely volatile state of affairs, congratulations! If it was to humiliate the leader of "largest state sponsor of terrorism" in front of the world, congratulations! If it was to embolden the fundamental reasons that radicals dislike the United States, way to go! Why invite the man to speak in the first place? You've let America and the world down.
I had a relative, an alum of your univeristy tell me today that from this day on, he will feel disgust and shame when he speaks or writes of his educational background. This man embodies political apathy, ironic? How do you think that random individual in Iran, once content in global apathy will feel?
Just one correction...
I