Questions, comments or a tip? Let us know.
An Open Letter to President Bollinger
PUBLISHED OCTOBER 3, 2007
"The petition below, endorsed by an estimated 600 Columbia affiliates,
was presented to President Bollinger as part of an effort to express
widespread concern on his introductory remarks. You may read the petition here: http://www.ipetitions.com/peti...
Dear President Bollinger:
We, the undersigned students of the School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) at Columbia University, express our deep concern over the nature of your recent introductory remarks addressing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
As members of the school that hosted this event, we believe that you disgraced the spirit of academic exchange and diplomacy that our institution promotes. The World Leaders Forum, created to enable the Columbia community to "examine global challenges and explore cultural perspectives," is an important platform for students to engage with divergent and pressing worldviews. Your remarks limited our ability to
fully benefit from this opportunity. It is particularly distressing that your inflammatory words were delivered at a time when dialogue with Iran is of the utmost importance in an effort to forestall war.
In the past Columbia has welcomed many world leaders of all political stripes while maintaining proper decorum. But by introducing Columbia's invited guest, the president of a sovereign nation, with disparaging and invidious language, you have done a disservice to our academic community.
As you stressed in countless announcements preceding the event, Columbia is a university committed to free speech and academic freedom. President Bollinger, when you speak in the name of Columbia University at an event sponsored by our school, we expect you to speak on all of our behalf. It is our concern that your disrespectful
language was delivered primarily to appease certain individuals and groups at the expense of vigorous intellectual discourse.
We feel our values were grossly misrepresented and that SIPA's reputation as a training ground for public servants has been tarnished. As future diplomats we will undoubtedly be tasked with repairing damage that remarks like yours cause.
We the undersigned represent people of many countries, creeds and political views. Despite our differences, we all agree that you must explain and make amends for your unfortunate actions. We call on you to hold a forum to explain these actions to our SIPA community and account for your statements.
We look forward to working with you to bring a dignified resolution to this issue.
Article Tools:
View Comments ( 5)
Post a Comment
I hold no brief for the leader of Iran (or, for that matter, for SIPA), but I very much doubt whether anyone in the US is "terrified" of offending him, as one rather soapy comment claims -- indeed, offending him, as Bollinger cravenly showed, is the only acceptable public stance these days. And when everyone's "free speech" is in unison, it makes me wonder a little about its "defenders".
But what concerns me about Bollinger's remarks is not so much their childish, grandstanding nature as the fact that in them he explicitly casts doubt on both "free speech" (not his own, naturally) and "academic freedom." The gist of his comments is that Americans are free to speak (and, as he oddly added, "to listen"), but others need speak only when spoken to. This is, for one thing, frankly imperialist -- which, to be fair, may or may not bother today's CU crowd. But it is also a worrying sentiment for the president of an academic institution , and a supposed First Amendment scholar at that, to express, particularly at an event whose only conceivably legitimate purpose can be the promotion of free speech and academic freedom.
My suspicion is that Bollinger originally envisioned the event as just that: a simple proof that freedom of speech extends even to those with whom we disagree, and incidentally a chance to have his name attached to that idea in a highly public manner. But with the overwhelmingly negative public reaction both to Ahmadinejad and to free speech, he rethought things and opted for the aforementioned childish, grandstanding opener -- no longer the champion of free speech, but instead the fearless scourge of dictators (except, of course, the ones we're allied with, who continue to receive a warm CU welcome). He has every right to do this, naturally, but to pretend that is still has anything to do with principles -- his, ours, or anyone's -- is beyond silly.
"Terrified" to offend was supposed to be hyperbole, given the "soapy" message of the SIPA petition that Bollinger's comments would somehow result in hostilities. However, if they are truly afraid, as they say, of the path to war resulting from Bollinger's comments, they may actually be terrified.
I agree with you on part of your last line - this event had nothing to do with the principles of free speech or academic freedom. Neither of those were really at issue here. No governmental agency was going to forbid the conference and no University body was going to forbid it.
Bollinger did not invite Ahmadinejad to speak. He has said that he wouldn't have extended the invitation. The Dean of SIPA gave the invite and wasn't denied his academic freedom to hold the event.
The issue is completly about judgment. Clearly, no one is walking in "unison" nor was the gist of Bollinger's comments "imperialist", as one rather soapy comment claims. Bollinger, really, should just have protested by not showing up to the event - his comments showed that, from the outset, he had very little faith that the event would be an academic give and take, but rather a propaganda fest. Yes, people asked questions. But none of them were answered honestly. "We do not have this phenomenon in Iran. I do not know who told you that we have it", is not high level academic discussion, and of course it is a lie that some have actually defended as being technically true. So, from the outset, at least the President of the University thought this would be a waste of time. Apparently, SIPA's Dean believed that listening to Hitler speak about racial purity would be a good use of time, as long as vigorous questions were asked. To which Hitler would do what? Say "you're right"?
Even if Bollinger's statements were belligerent - SIPA's invitee didn't address the charges - he sidestepped some and lied about others. I am really not clear why Ahmadinejad is worthy of an academic stage, except for rubberneckers who want to view a car wreck. Might as well invite OJ to speak - it's on the same level. Sure, people are interested in seeing this person up close, but what do you get out of it? Might as well invite Rosie O'Donnell to be a professor at SIPA - she has opinions without scholarship, just as many of the SIPA students seem to have.
"Terrified" to offend was supposed to be hyperbole, given the "soapy" message of the SIPA petition that Bollinger's comments would somehow result in hostilities. However, if they are truly afraid, as they say, of the path to war resulting from Bollinger's comments, they may actually be terrified.
I agree with you on part of your last line - this event had nothing to do with the principles of free speech or academic freedom. Neither of those were really at issue here. No governmental agency was going to forbid the conference and no University body was going to forbid it.
Bollinger did not invite Ahmadinejad to speak. He has said that he wouldn't have extended the invitation. The Dean of SIPA gave the invite and wasn't denied his academic freedom to hold the event.
The issue is completly about judgment. Clearly, no one is walking in "unison" nor was the gist of Bollinger's comments "imperialist", as one rather soapy comment claims. Bollinger, really, should just have protested by not showing up to the event - his comments showed that, from the outset, he had very little faith that the event would be an academic give and take, but rather a propaganda fest. Yes, people asked questions. But none of them were answered honestly. "We do not have this phenomenon in Iran. I do not know who told you that we have it", is not high level academic discussion, and of course it is a lie that some have actually defended as being technically true. So, from the outset, at least the President of the University thought this would be a waste of time. Apparently, SIPA's Dean believed that listening to Hitler speak about racial purity would be a good use of time, as long as vigorous questions were asked. To which Hitler would do what? Say "you're right"?
Even if Bollinger's statements were belligerent - SIPA's invitee didn't address the charges - he sidestepped some and lied about others. I am really not clear why Ahmadinejad is worthy of an academic stage, except for rubberneckers who want to view a car wreck. Might as well invite OJ to speak - it's on the same level. Sure, people are interested in seeing this person up close, but what do you get out of it? Might as well invite Rosie O'Donnell to be a professor at SIPA - she has opinions without scholarship, just as many of the SIPA students seem to have.
A few points:
1. The excuse for allowing a genocidal, racist, misogynist homophobe to speak at a Columbia sponsored event was that Columbia is dedicated to the principles of "free speech" and "academic freedom". Apparently, the signatories to this petition either (a) do not believe that President Bollinger is entitled to exercise his rights of free speech and academic freedom in such a setting or (b) believe that it is appropriate to allow a propagandist to speak without challenge (even if the challenge is up front) at a University sponsored event. For shame - I would hope that the signatories would support President Bollinger in his rebuke of David Duke, or another racist, in the same fashion when they invite Mr. Duke to speak at the next "Leaders" conference.
2. Who are these mysterious "certain individuals and groups" that you think are being appeased wrongly? Could they be Jews, other Dhimmis threatened or subjugated by Iran, homosexuals and supporters of women's rights? Why not just explicitly state your biases against these groups up front? I am sure that if David Duke were the speaker, you would protest against the illicit plottings of some other "uppity" cabal. But, as supporters of Ahmadinejad, I can see why you think these "groups" shouldn't have any right to exercise their powers of moral suasion.
3. If you think that Iran will start a war because of what the President of a private University says, that says a lot about what you think of the stability of Iran's leadership. And if you think what Bollinger said was disparaging and invidious, perhaps you haven't been listening lately to Mr. Ahmadinejad, who, among other things, has called for the destruction of, and terrorism against, sovereign states who are UN member states (all in violation of diplomatic protocol and the charter of the UN).
4. Perhaps you should petition Mr. Ahmadinejad to explain why he is an absolute "Homosexual Denier", if not, anymore (at least in front of the US public), a Holocaust Denier.
5. The petitioners use of the word "appease" is quite telling and a wonderful example of the psychological term "projection". It is clearly the petitioners who want to appease Mr. Ahmadinejad and are terrified of offending him. They are, after all, training for a life of employment at the United Nations - and appeasement of murderers is one of the UN's key callings.
Post new comment