Free Speech in Practice

BOLLINGER SHOULD IMMEDIATELY RESIGN, after having brought all the DISGRACE to Columbia University !!!!

President Bollinger did the right thing by permitting President Ahmadinejad to speak to students and faculty at the School of International and Public Affairs last week. In doing so he upheld Columbia’s noble tradition of open discussion and dialogue on the broadest range of ideas and points of view – including those which we find repugnant.

President Bollinger could have more effectively challenged Ahmadinejad had he done a little more “research” on Iran and US-Iranian relations and pitched his prepared statement at a higher level, making it less ad hominem. Yet, I think that it was useful for students and faculty, alumni, and other Americans to hear Ahmadinejad firsthand (thank you, C-SPAN) rather than via the filter of the mainstream media. Hopefully, President Ahmadinejad also learned something positive from his encounter at Columbia and the reaction to the events surrounding the visit.

Apart from Bollinger’s introduction, two aspects of the SIPA event particularly stood out for me. The first was Ahmadinejad’s absurd denial of the presence of homosexuals in Iran and the courteous and well-behaved audience’s immediate outburst of laughter. The second was Ahmadinejad’s invitation to faculty and students to visit any Iranian university. I believe that these guests will be received more graciously than Ahmadinejad was by the president my alma mater.

Benjamin Tua ‘63C

".....and the most enduring
of them all is the opiumization of an entire nation of china by the jewish family of sassoons."

That never happened. It was a myth made up by China to get sympathy and aid money.

i hope this is the first of the many the the world's non-free speakers, which is the overwhelming majority, that america finally is letting to speak and willing to listen. if we keep up keeping our citizens all protected under the umbrella of our seamless propaganda machine, the curses on the future generations will never have a chance of being lifted.

as a nuclear engineer (class of '72), what ahmadinerjad said about our 5th generation nuke weapons
is among such cureses.

and in regard to the holocaust, history has many more what that coming from, and the most enduring
of them all is the opiumization of an entire nation of china by the jewish family of sassoons.

The responses I received to the very specific (but, really, subsidiary) point about the ROTC were understandable (at a surface level, it might be argued that standards for employers are wholly separate from free speech issue) and have prompted debate even among my closest colleages. As one of my colleagues points out, the ROTC issue is highly relevant to this debate, and, in support of that proposition, he states as follows (and I agree with him).

I don't see how it's a different or separate issue. It deals with Columbia's values and priorities and how those values and priorities translate into action. Columbia chooses not to allow ROTC and chose to affirmatively invite A'Jad. Evidently the military's gay policy is sufficiently repugnant to Columbia so as to warrant a dis-invitation or an outright ban, but A'Jad is not. These choices by Columbia reveal its biases, and those biases are sickening.

Henry Jaffe

There is one sign Columbia University can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom of speech, and academic freedom.

President Bollinger, if you seek freedom of speech, if you seek academic freedom for Columbia University and the Ivy League, if you seek liberalization: Come here to your university's gate! Mr. Bollinger, open your university's gate to ROTC! Mr. Bollinger, tear down this wall!

I think that President Bollinger's remarks were generally on the mark, but his gratuitous discourtesy to Columbia's guest is an embarassment to us all.

I have been deeply disappointed and embarrassed by the conduct of Mr. Bollinger at the Forum. All of the points which he tried to make as an apologist for our demonic administration could and should have been made without insulting Mr. Ahmadinejad. The President of Iran in turn behaved as Mr. Bollinger should have and gave an international example of politeness and patience with another rude American full of himself and his country's power.

Mr. Bollinger showed the country and the world everything that is wrong with this country at this point in time: arrogant, shallow, blinded by AIPAC, apeasing to a fascist minority, singularly ethnocentric and racist to a remarkable degree. Mr. Bollinger was twisting facts and reality to a degree that is truly embarassing in front of the rest of the world where many of Columbia's alumni now reside after an education under other presidents that provided a more ample mind and spirit with which to approach a hurt and confused world.

I look forward to the next University President that will not make us cringe before he even speaks with fears of embarrassment in front of a much more mature world than our country and our university president are.

Yesterday I went to see No End In Sight with a friend, a movie which made us both even angrier at the Bush folks than we'd been before, for their mismanagement of the invasion of Iraq. After the movie, my friend said she thought Bollinger had been a bit harsh in his opening remarks to the Iranian Pres, and your poll shows that most folks did, too. We found it ironic that two different presidents, both of administrations causing or promoting pain in their own and neighboring countries, spoke at the UN this week, and congratulated their own agendas. My understanding that to invite Ahmadinejad to address Columbia students was an effort to demonstrate free speech and exchange of ideas in this country, contrasting to the lack of such privileges in his own country and a means for international students to learn something first hand about the type of thinking they may someday need to deal with in a diplomatic arena. As a gay person myself, I was pleased that the guy's denial that gay people in his country even existed was met with a tide of audience laughter. However, I do believe that the whole interchange really was worth having, and a teacher at my school suggested that mostly Jewish folks were up in arms about Ahmadinejad receiving this forum. That would certainly be understandable, though I resist taking sides when, as Mahmoud pointed out, there is a Palestinian issue. I just hope the people of the world can survive the administrations and powers of these two nut job Presidencies from opposite sides of the world and get about the issue of really promoting peace in the balance of the 21st Century.

One thing I find so interesting in Bollinger's comments, and many of the comments here and elsewhere. It is an example that to me best illustrates the depth of the inbeded intelectual laziness, one-sided thinking and blindness.

Imagine you landed on this planet from another world, without any preconceived notions...

One country goes half way around the world, send its soldiers to another country, resulting in prolonged chaos and destruction, eventually bringing into question that country's very existence as a homogenous entity. What would you call the first country? Would you call them freedom protectors?

Another country is right next to the country that's being destroyed. They share culture and religion with over half of the population of the country that's being destroyed. They get involved, siding with that population. In many cases they find their interests to be on the opposite side to those of the country which sent its soldiers from accross the world. And yes, in some instances they even work to undermine those freedom protectors, adding to the destruction. Knowing that the first country are the freedom protectors, what would you call this country? Surely it would be meddlers and terrorists. I mean, they are meddling in another country's affairs, that's just awful, right?

x

why invite the guy to speak? america has probably never before been in such need of someone like this to come speak on its soil, that's why!

yes the guy is an idiot with some crazy ideas but he offered a chance to hear a DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEW to the american people. directly from the source, unedited. since when did hearing different views on certain things become such a bad thing? (since 9/11 i guess)

i am not talking about your usual democrat vs republican point view; i am talking about a TRULY different, non-american point of view. and those have been is severe shortage as of lately, don't you think? why is it that for example americans don't want to hear that in most places around the world US is considered a threat and bad guys as much if not more as iran is? this is a fact, not an opinion - and it is not because 'they hate our freedoms' but because they think we are assholes! yet if an american offical is banned from airing their views in a certain country, that country is automatically labeled as undemocratic, etc, etc.

just because ahmedinajad is an idiot with some bad ideas, does not mean that he can't raise some good questions. what exactly is wrong with his point about the palestinians bearing the brunt of european guilt and jewish ambitions for own state? this is also an indisuptable fact, that palestinians (especially those millions of homeless ones) are today less happy then they would have been without israel. perhaps an unavoidable and unfortunate one, but a fact nevertheless - and the one that is an untouchable no-no in most american media.

and to blame the guy for canned answers and pushing own propaganda and cite that as a reason for not inviting him is just plain cynical. look at your own politicians, whether they are democrats or republicans! how many of them would ever be allowed on any public forum if that were the criteria?

as for lee, i understand why he did what he did, but i thought he lowered himself in the process and made ahmedinajad look more dignified (hard to do given that the guy looks like a bum). i am sorry, but didn't he just sound like a fox news host going on his 'us good, you bad, i squash you' rant? appealing for the people of course but not very dignified for a university president. but again, i understand why he did it, can't blame him too much.

overall though, i was extremely proud to be a columbia alum that day, the most proud i have ever been of my school! columbia had the balls to do the right thing, to do what NEEDED to be done in face of all the criticism and ra-ra americanism. not many people or institutions have balls these days, so WAY TO GO COLUMBIA, this is the type of stuff that shapes you, defines you, and in the long term solidifies your standing as a premier higher learning institution!

At first I cheered when Bollinger started giving the little creep his due. It was like he was channelling John Bolton. But upon further thought, the whole invitation was a huge mistake.

Nobody learned anything they didn't already know, because as usual, the creep won't answer a direct question, and usually asks one of his own as a distraction.

As much as the creep deserves the spanking he got, it only empowered him in the Arab world. The Iranian media certainly didn't reproduce or accurately report on Bollinger's remarks, or the questiions and non-answers, and Iranian Internet freedom is being quashed. The fools in the audience who incomprehensibly applauded his remarks received plenty of mention, of course. Any Arabs who do hear/read the entire proceedings are simply outraged and embittered, due to their previous brainwashing.

So either he is a noble statesman, who received thunderous applause at a prestigious American University, or he was insulted and embarrassed, and those Americans are rude ambushers, just like they've always been told.

I think he was simply using Columbia for a source of sound and video bites to be used in various manipulative ways in the future for a variety of reasons. And Columbia faculty and students willingly aided him in his endeavor.

Many students appeared to applaud Mr. Ahmadinejad enthusiastically during his talk.

Is that ALSO a reason to be proud of them and of Columbia?

Such extreme ignorance and moral stupidity demonstrated among the student body hardly registers as a "success."

Count me among the many alumni who view President Bollinger's left-handed welcome of Ahmadinejad as undercutting the very admonitions he made to the audience immediately preceding his regrettable invective. Given the guest's own way with words, I'm sure that the audience needed no goading on Bollinger's part to perform as he evidently hoped they would and reassure powerful and wealthy donors that Columbia could have its cake and eat it too by promoting free speech that could be safely reined in by Peter Pan's discreetly hidden flight wiring.

I applaud the university for taking the heat and staging the ambush, um, event anyway, and I hope that the lessons learned include allowing a controversial guest to speak and then either validate or hang himself with no demagogic pandering from a figure who we would prefer to think embodies the ideals of a liberal university rather than the smugness of a shariah court.

I'm afraid that, on balance, I learned more about the character of Lee Bollinger than I did of Ahmadinejad. I hope our university president learned the same.

As a 1996 alumnus, I have no problem with inviting Ahmadinejad to speak, and I am proud of Bollinger for telling it "like it is." Many conservatives felt that this forum would legitimize Ahmadinejad; however, I think his incoherent rambling did everything but. Mr. Ahmadinejad responded exactly how I hoped had he would: he demonstrated to America what an absolute lunatic he is. Thank you, Mr. Bollinger, for having the gumption to stand up to this fool. I am proud to be an alum.

I previously wrote th provosts office about this issue.

In recent years I have become, like so many others, increasingly alienated from a place I once loved.

The issue at hand here is not one of free speech. That is the canard that Bollinger used to aggrandize himself.

The simple fact that he gave a forum to Ahmadinejad made the statement that issues like the destruction of Israel, or the massacre of Jews was a topic, whichever side of the debate you fall on, that was WORTHY of debate.

Bollinger was, effectively, saying that no matter how repugnant we might consider these statements they are legitimate topics for discussion.

Strange, but he did not even see the irony in the fact that this is EXACTLY what Ahmadinejad said about Holocaust revisionism.

The simple test for whether this was a legitimate invitation is the act of substituting.

What if this were an American politician who advocated the nuclear destruction of all Indian reservations and the elimination of all Native Americans? Would THAT person have been given a forum?

What if Ahmadinejad instead, had made speeches about the genetic inferiority of African Americans, and proposed euthanizing them (something actually proposed by the Nobel Prize winner Edward Teller, who, of course, was NOT given a forum for that discussion). Would he have been extended an invitation in that case?

I think we all know the answers to those questions.

The last person in history to propose that the death of the Jewish people deserved to be debated was also appeased for a while. Adolph Hitler.

President Bollinger was out sophisted, by a madman. And worse, he made a great university a party to it.

Even the NYPD did not get sucked into this debate.

Shame on him, shame on the university, and shame on us for allowing it.

Steve Luftschein
CC '85, Law '89

Inviting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak was good.

Insulting the invited speaker before he begins was petty.

I agree whole heartedly with Frank Wilson political discussion in America has no depth.

Below I re-post what I wrote Aug 15 under the political discuss section of the alumni forums:

The reason the U.S. ruling class finds Iran threatening is the example they provide. Sending government money to benefit the people of the country. Using the government to providing education, health care, jobs to the people. If the American people saw this they might want the same.

As a graduate of Columbia University (DSW, 89), I was embarrassed yesterday when I heard President Bollinger’s introduction of Iran’s President Ahmadinejad. Following his defense of academic freedom and the importance of maintaining an open public forum ( see Bollinger’s statement of September 19), Bollinger’s subsequent introduction of Ahmadinejad was in marked contrast to the spirit of his earlier statements. Reminiscent of the Bush doctrine of “pre-emptive strike,” Bollinger apparently felt he really could not allow an open forum to take place at Columbia without first poisoning the discussion. Did he not trust the public to form its own conclusions? Or was his attack introduction an attempt to appease critical supporters of Columbia University? What a missed opportunity to model hospitality and freedom we value so highly in academia. I hasten to say that I am not a sympathizer of Ahmadinejad. I, too, am troubled by most of his ideas and assertions. But I do support dialogue and debate in the best spirit of the academy. I encourage the administration of Columbia University to do so as well.

The central deception in Columbia's defense of itself is the notion that this is a free speech issue. Free speech has nothing to do with what Columbia did. Today's campuses are among the least respectful of free speech of any institution in America. In what other venue would a former president of Harvard be DIS-invited from speaking because his views of women's math abilities are not quite politically correct? In what other venue would hundreds be silenced on the spurious and absurd grounds that their views "offend" someone? In what other institution in America are there elaborate speech codes making certain forms of expression punishable?

As for Ahmadinejad himself, will Columbia now invite David Duke in as a "distinguished speaker"? Will it invite the unabomber to speak from prison? Or for that matter, will it invite an actual, official Holocaust denier like Ernst Christof Friedrich Zündel to speak from Germany where he is so unfairly detained? Why not? Nothing he says is less "distinguished" or less academically grounded than the pathetic rantings of his Iranian counterpart. Surely he is no less a threat to security than the Mahdi himself.

Columbia completely obfuscates the issue by suggesting free speech has anything to do with this, as does this editorial whitewash. Free speech is not the issue. The conditions that make free speech possible ARE the issue. Columbia demonstrates it knows not a thing about the vigorous duties it ought to shoulder in defending those conditions. One is not to use a distinguished lecture series to help the likes of Ahmadinejad put the stoning of adulterers, the slaughter of homosexuals, or the genocide of the Jews on the agenda as topics worthy of "vigorous debate."

I am a French Moroccan Jew. I count more than fifty members of my immediate family as victims of the holocaust. I have lived for more than half my life in Morocco, an Arab Moslem country. I pride myself in believing that I understand the Moslem world better than any average westerner. I also am a graduate of both GS and SIPA at Columbia University. I want to say that I am proud to be an alumnus of such a great institution and feel very supportive of Dean Bollinger's opening statements. I know that President's Ahmadinejad's comments were diplomatic in nature ,that he did not answer or address the questions and issues presented to him. Yet I am sure that such an event will do more for the advancement of the present middle east situation and the Iranian nuclear stalemate than any other present political transactions. Only through dialog and discussion can people get to know and respect each other. The channels of communication are open and new meetings will no doubt take place in the near future. In the end I am convinced that these discussions will lead to some form of peaceful solution. Ahmadinejad , as bad as he may sound to us in the west is not the most radical member of the ruling Iranian theocracy. He is only the political mouthpiece of the regime. True power lies with the Mullahs. If Ahmadinejad reaches a level of international acceptance and respect, he might then be able to internally challenge the Mullahs views and have support for a resolution of the nuclear conflict by working a compromise with the West and also with his internal opposition at home. In Iran there has been a Jewish community for 3000 years and it is still 40,000 souls strong, the largest Jewish community in the Moslem world. There are Jewish members of the Iranian parliament. It is however contradictory to note the public stance of Ahmadinejad on the issue of the Holocaust, his advocacy of the destruction of Israel and the fact that Iranian Jews live in peace with Synagogues and schools ,traveling abroad as they please. The schizophrenia of the Iranian president's attitude shows that he has been trying to shock the West and please his critics at home with one goal; To resolve the Nuclear stalemate and alarm the world to the Palestinian situation. Once these problems find an acceptable settlement I believe the words in Ahmadinejad's mouth will soften considerably! Yes President Bollinger and Columbia have done the right thing and have greatly helped governments and diplomats alike to advance in the Iranian crisis. In doing so Columbia University does the right job faithful to its motto." In Columbia's light the world will see the light!"

Can't help notice that in the midst of comments ostensibly pertaining to "free speech", with the implication, if not presumption, the USA is much more free than Iran, that NO ONE has been willing to identify his or her self by name.

I am reminded of Iranian students at Columbia in the late 70s that wore bandanas on their faces when they periodically protested the Shah of Iran on campus because they feared being identified by Iranian secret police for later punishment. Are we in a similar state of fear?

Still, I suppose I should appreciate the too-often befuddled views of a multiple-personality "anonymous" more than some of the noms de net used these days. Whatever happened to the days of willfully obtuse noms de plume such as Cincinnatus or Mark Twain?

I generally prefer using the pseudonym Eric Blair, even if it's so 1984.

PS Given some of the syntax and spelling in previous comments, I do have to wonder about the value of an Ivy League education. . .or could it be possible that some claiming to be alumni obtained their deficient schooling elsewhere. . .Quantico or Langley/McLean, perhaps?

I have been associated with Columbia University for a quarter of a century and, for the very first time, I am completely ashamed of my school and am at a loss to explain adequately why and how this notorious "event" could have occurred.

Let us be clear about what happened here - it is both chilling and despicable. Columbia voluntarily provided a forum to permit a despised leader to further his anti-gay, anti-Semitic, anti-American, anti-democratic, anti-human rights agenda and, in so doing, provided legitimacy to that which, by any reasonable measure, should be held with scorn. We can tell our university community and the country that we did not promote him or help him by giving him this access, but, of course, we did. Regardless of what we say and tell ourselves to believe, the rest of the world sees a man who now has enough power and respect to command the stage at one of the most highly regarded universities in the world. We, the University community, have become Mr. Ahmadinejad's pawn and he has played us perfectly in a truly vile game of chess.

I am also offended at the University's position and reaction to this controversy, the unvarnished version of which can best be seen in the statement issued by the Dean of the School of International Affairs. This gentleman's reaction was, in part, that he would have provided a stage to Hitler in 1939. Hitler?! This comment is so stunning and reprehensible that it is almost impossible to frame a proper response. What it does tell us, however is that either our school stands for (and will stand up for) nothing or that it has knowingly yielded to others within the University who are actively promoting ideas and agenda put forth by Mr. Ahmadinejad. I would like to think that it is the former, not the latter, but I am not comforted by either possibility.

The University would have us believe that Mr. Ahmadinejad's appearance is validated because the school is simply promoting free speech and a "marketplace of ideas." This position is critically and fundamentally flawed in numerous ways.

First, Mr. Ahmadinejad clearly has the right to say what he pleases and, like many Americans, I would fight to the death to promote his right, and the right of any other person whose views I despise, to say what he wishes free of governmental interference. But we are not talking about free speech rights - that is not the issue. We are talking about the decision of a private, not public, academic institution to choose this person to air hateful and incendiary views on a very potent world stage. So, in essence, the "free speech" defense hides what is really an affirmative decision by the University to give a hated speaker a bully pulpit.

Second, the University does not really support free speech. As was so ably pointed out by many others, the University actively bars groups such as ROTC from coming on campus. Certainly, the bona fides of the ROTC program and our military can be debated, but the notion that we would promote a foreign dictator while simultaneously preventing our government from giving the best and brightest students a choice to serve our country is hypocritical and insulting. Selective speech is not free speech.

Third, and most fundamentally, as noted above, the real issue is not free speech, but whether our University stands for anything and whether it, as an institution, has the moral courage to oppose, and not directly or indirectly, support those who pursue ends, and articulate positions, that are clearly repugnant to everything that our academic community and its members hold dear. If there is anything that I learned in my four years of studying at Columbia it is that all ideas are most assuredly not equally valid and that the best way to empower a tyrant is to give him or her a proper stage and a broad audience. Rather than repelling the devil we see, we have furthered his mission. We have not just acquiesced, we have enabled.

In closing, I note that, unlike many who have posted their thoughts here, I am not going to remain anonymous. I am very upset about this and, so, I am signing my name to this posting. I urge others to join in, sign on and oppose what has occurred at our University and help our community ensure that something like this will not happen again during our lifetimes.

Columbia deserves better.

Henry Jaffe, Columbia College, 1986

It appears that I am as well qualified to weigh in on this much ballyhoo'ed event as most of the posters, so here goes.

1. I do believe that Columbia has a right to invite Ahmedinejad to speak, under the banners of the First Amendment and academic freedom. Still there is the question of whether to exercise that right in this case. No one is compelled by those prinicpals to invite Mr. Ahmedinejad to speak. There seem to be two schools of thought: the "don't give him a platform" school, which has a good point based, especially, on the selective use of the event by such propaganda tools as Al Jazeera noted by one of the posters; and the "Some people you don't have to parody, you just quote 'em" school. I have to say that the outburst of laughter which accompanied Ahmedinejad's remarks on homosexuals argued somewhat in favor of this view. Personally, I would have preferred that Columbia not dignify him with an invitation.

2. Once you've invited him, I think it was not appropriate to say such things as "you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator,” and “you are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated.” Point out issues where you disagree but don't call him names. This wasn't a dinner party but I think a speaker is entitled to polite treatment even if combined with disagreement. As I note in my point 3 below, I wish similar respect had been shown by all students toward Gilchrist, Buchanan and McCain.

Interestingly, it appeared that Mr. Ahmedinejad seemed more concerned that Mr. Bollinger's remarks were an attempt to "vaccinate" the listeners against his remarks than he was about the more obvious lack of decorum toward a guest. He appears to have either a higher opinion of the ability of a speaker to sway an audience, or a lower opinion of audiences, than we are used to in this country.

3. It does seem to me that the attitudes expressed at Columbia from President Bollinger on down suggest a greater tolerance for Ahmedinejad's appearance than for the Minutemen, Pat Buchanan and John McCain (all mentioned in the postings). I suspect that a double standard does exist on campus and I hope that President Bollinger and Columbia will use the example of the Ahmedinejad appearance to resist that double standard in the future.

4. I agree with various posters who argue that inviting a speaker for a single speach is differentiable from establishing ROTC on campus on an ongoing basis. However, I lament the decision to keep ROTC off campus. My other alumni affiliation is with Cornell, whose motto is "I would found an institution where any person can find instruction in any study." ROTC has been available at Cornell without interruption since before it trained my father to serve in World War II, even during the turbulent 1960s when Columbia discontinued it. I believe Columbia should reject this relic of an unfortunate attitude from that time and reinstate ROTC.

5. Finally, I think the Spectator's after-the-fact justification of the Ahmedinejad event as a chance to "learn" from Ahmedinejad's "provocative thoughts on the plight of the Palestinians, Iran's nuclear program, and how Western imperialism has helped shape the Middle East" demonstrates the double standard rather well.

It is a rather bizarre or uninformed notion that the United States or Columbia needs the comments of Ahmedinejad to learn about the plight the Palestinians. The US has been working for years to resolve the plight of the Palestinians; we just feel that any such resolution needs to take Israel into account. It did not take this forum to learn that Ahmedinejad disagrees. There certainly are intelligent criticisms of US policy toward the Palestinians; Ahmedinejad's are not among them. A university is not a blog; it can and should exercise an intelligent filtration of views to insure quality instruction.

As to the Iranian nuclear program, it seems a little odd to say we should learn from Mr. Ahmedinejad's claim that Iran's program is "transparent" when the UN monitoring program has uncovered repeated failures to disclose elements of the program. I find it highly unlikely that Mr. Ahmedijad had anything to say about the program that should be considered reliable or worthy of consideration.

I hope no Columbia student needs additional instruction on the sorry history of European carving up of the Middle East and again I doubt Mr. Ahmedinejad has anything reliable or worthy of consideration to say on the subject. "Western Imperialism" is the last refuge of Marxist scoundrels.

All of this brouhaha about ROTC stemming from Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia is off the mark. There is a vast difference between allowing someone to speak in support of ideas not embraced or accepted as a consensus by an institution, and accepting into the curriculum a group which does not fit into the fabric of the campus environment.

ROTC embraces outdated standards of morality that have no place at Columbia. The military openly discriminates against homosexuals and believes that all women are incapable of serving in combat. Advocates for ROTC are more than welcome to speak their minds at Columbia, just as Ahmadinejad was more than welcome to come and spew his particularly rancid brand of bunkum. However, you probably won't see Bollinger and his administration adopting those policies, just like you won't see them welcoming ROTC.

Let me make this perfectly clear. I am not, in any way, implying that Ahmadinejad and the U.S. military are the same thing. However, it is important for people to understand that Columbia's refusal to allow ROTC on campus is not a free speech issue, but is being portrayed by so-called "conservative" politicos as such to peg Columbia as a "liberal" institution.

There is a place for the military in higher education, just not in a school as devoted to independent thought and progressive ideas. This University, my University, does not want a homophobic and gender-bigoted organization on our campus. But anyone affiliated with it has the right to speak in favor of it. The Gilchrist incident was deplorable, and those involved in it have been punished appropriately.

And for those of you who consider what happened on Monday "welcoming" President Ahmadinejad, I think you are gravely mistaken. Also... I don't think there's enough mention in the media that this was not an isolated event, but part of a larger forum put on by SIPA, not the controversial dog and pony show that it's being made out to be.

I am fully in favor of free speech, and there are any number of forums available to the Iranian President. There was no reason for Columbia to offer its prestigious forum to him. Having done so, the introduction by University President Bollinger --- even though the tenor of his remarks was announced beforehand --- was inappropriate for the host of such an event. Finally, however unwittingly on the part of Columbia, films of the Iranian's appearance will prove extremely beneficial to him back in his own country.

Is it just me or is Ahmadinejad totally hot?! He's definitely rocking a Clooney look. When is People magazine going to do a Sexiest Evil Dictators list???

i am pleased by the event and these comments..time that new yorkers/americans have an opportunity to learn about the rest of the world.