Join our editorial board by applying here or become a columnist at the Spectator by clicking here.
Bollinger's Belligerence: SIPA Students Respond to Ahmedinajad Talk
PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 25, 2007
Yesterday, Lee Bollinger referred to the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran as a "petty and cruel dictator" and openly doubted whether Mahmoud Ahmedinajad would have the "intellectual courage" to answer the questions posed. In the history of the World Leaders Forum at Columbia University, no guest has ever been treated with such contempt and disrespect.
In contrast, two years earlier, President Bollinger introduced the President of Pakistan, an autocrat with a dismal human rights record, with a tone of cordiality expected in a forum with a head of state. Why the difference between the two?
Could it be the massive media attention present at the second forum inspired Bollinger's belligerence?
Could it be because, in the end, Bollinger cowed to the very political pressure he has claimed all week that he was defending free speech against?
These sorts of questions regrettably are not new. This time last year, Dean Lisa Anderson invited Ahmedinajad to speak at the World Leaders Forum. President Bollinger once again succumbed to political pressure. This time, Bollinger un-invited Ahmedinajad on the grounds that he was unconvinced that his comments would reflect the university's "academic values."
Interestingly, two weeks later, Jim Gilchrist, spokesperson of the Minutemen, an anti-immigrant vigilante group, was not only invited, but personally defended by Bollinger in the spirit of freedom of speech.
Are you confused? So are we.
It is also curious to note that a talk by Ahmedinajad last year would not have met Bollinger's standards of discourse, but somehow it did this year.
The biggest irony is that the "academic values" Bollinger supposedly defended last year are the very values of dignity, collegiality, and open dialogue that he transgressed in his opening remarks yesterday.
In Bollinger's correspondence to the Columbia community last night, he reflected that "this occasion is not only about the speaker but quite centrally about us -- about who we are as a nation and what universities can be in our society."
If this is true, what does yesterday's forum say about us as a university?
As a university, we see ourselves as a bastion of free speech and academic freedom. Indeed, this has been the repeated rhetoric surrounding the justification for Ahmedinajad's visit.
However, did we exemplify these values yesterday when our president viciously denigrated a head of state in his introductory remarks? Did these personal attacks against Ahmedinajad- which included calling him "uneducated," "evil," and "ridiculous"- uphold the standards of discourse that Bollinger and we as a university claim to defend?
While it is easy to blame President Bollinger for yesterday's debacle- and he is responsible for his actions- the fact that this occurred points to a larger set of dynamics at work. In the rush to be self-righteous warriors for free speech, many of us have forgotten that extending an invitation to Ahmedinajad also means being open to what he has to say.
Extending the invitation was the easy part. Listening and trying to understand has proven to be more difficult, and more important. Given the dangerous escalation of international tensions with Iran, yesterday we may have squandered a critical opportunity to push this debate into a new, more peaceful direction.
To the surprise of many students at Columbia, yesterday's forum was manipulated into a politically-charged spectacle which is a far cry from the open-minded, academic debate we all expected.
Despite our own rhetoric about the exceptionalism of the university campus, today we realize that we too are vulnerable to political pressure. We too can manipulate a platform to our own political advantage- whether we are pandering to the conservative media, special interests, or university donors. We too have lessons that we need to learn about the essence of free speech.
The authors are students in the School of International and Public Affairs.
Article Tools:
View Comments ( 11)
Post a Comment
Funny how it takes a denial of homosexuality for some liberals to acknowledge evil. A mere tendency to hack off the heads of innocent people with a dull blade and train your children to be suicide killers is not sufficient.
The anti-Semitism and hatred for the tiny little country of Israel is pretty interesting to behold, given the ranting and raving against HATRED AND RACISM by the left. Hatred for the ROTC, the Minutemen and anything AMERICAN suddenly is acceptable in the land where students feel sorry for a killer who wasn't treated with enough respect. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
Gays, women, Jews and minorities would be the first to be murdered by the society that you make apologies for. This is a culture (the Islamic Radicals about whom you are in such DEEP denial) that KILLS 9 year old rape victims and STONES women to death! It's the land of honor killings of WOMEN who merely look at a man wrongly and cliterectomies. You folks are fantasyland. It's easier to hate the country that allows you your free speech and your luxury than to recognize the enemy that threatens this freedom you enjoy and mock.
A majority of folks currently engaged in "higher education" really need to LEAVE school as soon as possible in order to start getting a REAL education!
As a Columbia Alum, I am ashamed and embarrassed by my alma mater.
---A Saddened Columbia Alum WHOSE IDEAS ARE NOT WELCOME AT COLUMBIA, BUT TERRORIST'S IDEAS ARE.
Oh please. If he hadn't called out Ahmadinejad's dismal human rights record and given him a deservedly tough time, we'd all be pouncing on PrezBo for that. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Some people are never satisfied, eh?
A well written and thought provoking article. I thought if anyone came across as petty and uneducated it was Bollinger who made himself judge, jury and executioner even before the Iranian president was allowed to speak. I was reserved in my judgement of the Iranian president, but now that I see how not only the media, but the way the head of one of the most prestigious univerisites portrayal of him has been so biased, it causes me to question my own knowledge and 'facts' about him and what he has said. I must admit I was more negative toward him before Bollingers speech, now I see his character and behaviour more in context.
Who's paying the tuition of these nit-wits and how did they find their way in here?
Why is the price of gasoline going down, while the price of a barrel of nationalized? oil is going higher?
This is what former Chairman Greenspan called a conundrum.
Can the Communist Party of think tank America create a conundrum in the financial markets of tomorrow?
Martha Stewart says that stock market and oil market manipulation by third parties insiders is illegal and a felony.
"Martha Stewart for President" is an oxymoran phrase.
"Nixon Sucks" is redundant and patronizing.
The problem with President Bolinger's remarks is not so much the rhetoric, but their timing. Has Columbia University delved deep into the mind of a think tank at work that can manipulate and guage the probability of a stock market crash in the build up of an impending war that has already been manufactured and fitted for Orwellian Peace?
What is in President's Bolinger's portfolio and CIA wallet? You should be preaching freedom of expression, not "mother of Satan" explosive rhetoric.
Introducing Ahmadinejad: Bollinger and abusive advocacy
1:11 AM ET
Ali Khan [Washburn University School of Law]: Lee C. Bollinger is what you may call crème de la crème. His credentials as a law professor, a legal scholar of the First Amendment, the former dean of the University of Michigan Law School, and now the President of Columbia University have been incredible. With these many feathers in his cap, one would bet Bollinger has mastered the art of dignified advocacy. His indecorous manners in challenging the Iranian President at his Monday appearance at Columbia, however, caught many by surprise.
Ignoring the calls that Ahmadinejad, whose views on the holocaust are hurtful, should not be invited to a prestigious American university, Bollinger invoked the First Amendment to defend the invitation. But once the Iranian President was captive on campus at Columbia, Bollinger turned on the guest. With well-prepared ill-will and rehearsed abusive language, Bollinger squirted a barrage of curses, calling the Iranian President "a petty and cruel dictator… a dishonorable man...stunningly uneducated … fanatical…ridiculous, and more."
I wonder if Bollinger ever learned in the law school that curses do not make effective arguments. Imagine Bollinger with his abusive rhetoric in a court of law addressing a highly sophisticated jury. Imagine Bollinger with his abusive tongue combating with the opposing counsel in a hotly contested case. Imagine Bollinger with his abusive words unleashing the Socratic dialogue on a student whose views Bollinger considers are extreme.
Judges repeatedly complain that too many lawyers fall for bad manners in advocating cases. Most bad manners are bad speech manners, including inappropriate and insulting words. The New York Lawyer's Code of Professional Responsibility demands that a lawyer be temperate and dignified. Bollinger had the ability to be a much more effective advocate of the legitimate points he was making. Courteous language carries tremendous power to disarm a foe, including a professor from Tehran. The disagreeable language allowed under the First Amendment is not critical for effective advocacy or a meaningful dialogue. It now appears that the First Amendment Bollinger was invoking to defend the invitation was indeed for his own speech.
Lee Bollinger's coward remarks proved one thing to the world. That Columbia and most of American Academia is nothing but Cheerleaders for the government and corporations. Columbia has only rendered itself irrelevant in future discourse over justice and peace.
Somebody remind Mr. Bollinger that it is his government that is responsible for the ongoing genocide in Iraq. To date not less than 1 million Iraqis have been murdered as a result of the U.S. invasion in 2003. If we include to this the 1.5 million murdered by U.S. sanctions over the years spanning 1991-2003, we have 2.5 million Iraqi victims of U.S. genocide. 2.5 Iraqis out of about 20 million is roughly 12% of the population. Yes Mr. Bollinger, all those wonderful adjectives that you so generously hurled at Mr. Ahmedinejad would so much more aptly suit your own imperialist state. Add to this the genocide in Palestine - sponsored by U.S. support for the Israeli war machine, and we have a far clearer image of what underlies criticism of U.S. foreign policy. But then again, Bollinger's crib is not with imperialist genocide - its with anybodyu critical of the same. It is the opportunity to insult the head of state of a non-white country that is cowering under the crosshairs of the imperialist state that whets his appetite for insulting rants. In short, Mr. Bollinger is an unapologetic cheerleader for the genocidal imperialist state that has replaced the fantasy of the American republic - tomorrow watch as he insults Americans defending their rights.
Excellent article. President Bollinger obviously adheres to the idea, as do many on Columbia's campus, that some human beings are better (read any supporter of Israel) than others (read those who equate Zionism with racism, or anyone who disagrees with Israeli policy), and that some heads of state (read American supported dictators and despots) should be honored, while others (anyone with whom we disagree) should be scorned and ridiculed. As the poster said, freedom of speech cuts both ways; in order to speak you must first listen.
Post new comment