Bollinger Speaks Out on Campus Environment

On Thursday afternoon, Spectator sat down with University President Lee Bollinger to discuss recent bias incidents, the invitation of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the University's plans for Manhattanville expansion. The following is a transcript of the conversation.

Web Feature

Transcript, timeline, slideshows, and more. Photo: Daniella Zalcman

Spectator: We've heard a number of reports, still unconfirmed at this point, that the NYCLU is offering to defend the perpetrator of the TC hate crime on free speech grounds. Do you believe that this is protected free speech, and if it turns out that this was conducted by someone who is a part of the Columbia University community under your purview, do you have any plans to take action to take action against the student or professor?

Bollinger: So it might help to make a couple of preliminary comments. First, there are so many things that people don't understand about Columbia. One of them is that there are these affiliated institutions that are separate. Even though the title is Teachers College at Columbia ... there's a separate Board of Trustees, a separate president. I, as president of Columbia, do not run Teachers College. That is President Susan Furham. I've indicated to her that I will do everything I can to help her. But she has absolutely appropriately regarded this as her responsibility within Teacher's College.

...

Based on the facts I know, I would never make a claim this is protected expression under the First Amendment. There are First Amendment issues about bias claims and hate crimes. There are things that need to be argued and discussed about them ... but fundamentally this is really not a First Amendment problem. But I don't know all the facts.

Now the last part of what you said—if this turned out to be a Columbia student. ... Again, it's just too difficult to answer that question, because immediately if it were a student, then I have virtually no responsibility. That was one of the issues with the Minuteman controversy—that is, the president of the University does not have the power under our rules to simply discipline students. There is a very established procedure for that and it involves the President, but way down the line and only under certain circumstances and appeal and the like. Faculty—I can't just dismiss faculty, so there really is a complicated answer to that and I don't really want to get into it.

Spectator: Do you think there is a problem at Columbia in terms of bias incidents and an environment that fosters them? If you do believe that's true, what concrete measures would you take to address them?

Bollinger: I think this is a community—and I really believe this—that absolutely deplores actions like this. I think these [hate crimes] are committed by individuals who violate norms that are deeply held and subscribed to by our community. I do not think they spring out of a kind of racism or anti-Semitism that is pervasive or systemic in the institution. I don't believe that.

Spectator: Perhaps not pervasiveness, but apathy in completely responding to them?

Bollinger: I don't believe that either. I don't believe that it is a matter of apathy. I think the institution deeply embraces and meaningfully embraces these norms and acts on them in all kinds of ways, in thousands of ways. And I think it's a community that utterly rejects and acts on its rejection of racial and ethnic and religious hatred.

But I think there are still issues we still need to address about being a more diverse community. It's something we've been working on for a number of years now and that the institution has been working on for a number of years. We've tried to institute our own policies and goals and projects. There's much more we can do and should do about to try to be better about fulfilling our values.

But I don't think the reverse. I don't think the progress we need to make on that is playing into incidents of terrible hate crimes or acts of hate.

Spectator: You've said on several occasions that you stand by your introduction that you gave for President Ahmadinejad. I was curious if you could comment a little on the thought process that entered into the wording and tone of that speech, as well as the effect you think that speech and his visit are going to have in the long run.

Bollinger: I guess I would say first that the part of the entire event that was an unqualified success was the way in which students engaged with the issues and worked through the multitude of questions that were raised by the visit and by the event itself. So I am extremely proud of the community here for how it dealt with these issues and believe that it was a very important educational experience.

Second thing, to really go to your question, under norms long held in universities—not compelled by the first amendment, because as a private institution we're not bound by the first amendment—but under forms of academic freedom that I believe are long standing and also correct ... When a faculty member or a dean of school invites a speaker to come for academic purposes, it is the responsibility of the institution and its president to defend that. I told the dean of the School of Public Affairs that I would do that, and I committed myself, and I believe in it. So the speech itself, I defend it and would still defend. I have no doubts about that.

The issue of how to create an event that is academically meaningful, that lives up to our intellectual standards of taking ideas really seriously and not holding back emotions and passions that are aroused by ideas and beliefs and actions—that's a very hard question and at a minimum. We knew that we had to have to have a significant period for questions, but it was my feeling, and I think it was also John Coatsworth's feeling, that we needed to engage with the president of Iran's stated beliefs and actions in a much more direct way as well. My biggest fear about the event was that we would not have a debate that would be at the level of the seriousness of the questions on the table.

So we decided, or I decided, I'll take responsibility for it, that I would be make an opening statement and that there would be a number of questions raised about matters that were widely reported and known ... and these would be posed in a very sharp and direct way. That we would not shy away from very serious exchange about very serious maters. And the Iranian representatives agreed to this ... this was understood to be the framing of the event.

I felt deeply about this. I spoke for myself. I realize there's an issue of the president speaking, how does that implicitly speak for the community, and the like. But I believe strongly that University presidents should be engaged, as I believe institutions, faculty and student should be engaged in issues of the time.

...

Spectator: A number of people have pointed out subsequently that you have not given nearly as pointed an introduction to other world leaders whose countries have been accused of, if not the same human rights abuses, at least similar ones. Can you comment on why for example you would not give as pointed an introduction to President Musharraf as you would to the President of Iran?

Bollinger: I think it's a perfectly fair question. I have two answers. One is that I think that the positions that the president of Iran has taken—especially in denying the Holocaust and in his highly aggressive statements about Israel—put this in a different category in my mind.

The second point is that I accept the criticism and have been thinking a lot about it. My goal has been ... that in a university, we are not doing diplomacy; we are not doing public policy. We are taking ideas seriously. We want a community in which there can be the most uninhibited, robust, and wide-open debate there can be. We all are comfortable with that ... I believe that I have not myself done everything I could under every circumstance to do that and I hope to do better in the future.

....

I would also say the World Leaders Forum was something I created primarily for students to be able to be exposed to really important issues of the time and really important leaders of the time, and also of course for faculty. I think it's been very, very successful but I also want to continue working on it. It is truly a wok in progress. How do we do more than simply have a speaker in [and] ask a few questions? ... How can we do better in linking this to a kind of knowledge that we want and a kind of engagement? ... It's still got a long way to go.

Spectator: You mentioned in your introduction that when President Ahmadinejad spoke at the Council of Foreign Relations last year the kind of absurdity of the statements he made ended up undermining him at home, and you hoped that this event here would do that same thing. In recent days there have been several protests among student at Universities in Iran ... I'd just be interested to hear how you feel about this?

Bollinger: I don't claim responsibility for that. I admire students' protest against the oppression and human rights violations. I think that's important for all people ... This was an effort on my part to try and give a statement that I believed in, and one that would provide a context for him to respond and for an audience to ask questions perhaps in the context or framing of some of the issues. I hope it was successful. I believe in most respects it was successful. ... I think the whole event tapped into a global anxiety about the state of the world and lots of issues. I think it will take time to sort out its meaning and significance ... I am intensely interested in Iranian society and culture and feel deeply interested in learning more about Iranian Persian civilization, which I think is incredibly rich.

...

This was about a president and his policies and his beliefs. It was not about the people of Iran, of whom I have deep respect and interest. But what happens there as a result of this I don't know want o predict and I do not know how to predict.

Spectator: Moving on to Manhattaville, Borough President Scott Stringer's recent vote to approve the plan came as a result of this deal you guys made to give some money for parks and affordable housing ... Do you anticipate making similar deals as the other steps of the ULURP processes go forward, and what specifically is the university will to give to secure a favorable outcome there?

Bollinger: First of all, I want to use a different term from deal ... I think it's an agreement with the community on really important things that they decide that they want and we think we can give. And we've understood from the very beginning ... in order to do this project we want to and expect to come to some kind of agreement and with the surrounding communities about what Columbia can do to improve their lives. There are various steps in the process as you know ... and we're still in discussions with the local development corporation ...and the agreement we reached with the bureau president was to impact and will impact the Local Develop Corporation agreement ... I think it was a great step for the project I think it's a great step for the city and I think it's a great step for the surrounding communities. We will continue as I said ... to arrive at a broader community benefits agreement with the LDC. But since we're in what is essentially a negotiation, I really can't comment on the full range of what we can do. We've said all along we really want to help with housing, we really want to help with jobs, we really want to help with education. The same with health, same with the arts, same with the vitality of the community. What we need to hear from them is what's most important to them, and then we'll try to respond as best we can.

Spectator: Is that something happening in the context of a communitiy benefits agreement or with elected officials?

Bollinger: What we agreed to with the bureau president will be folded into a community benefits agreement ... I think what we want ... we really want to respect the community and the Local Development Corporation but we will try and expect to integrate what we agree to at each stage into a broader Community Benefits Agreement.

...

Spectator: Certainly it can't be predicted at this point, but in the ULURP process things do seem to be going Columbia's way ... Would you consider it a victory if the plan got all the city approvals it needed, but there still remained a level of resentment ... at the community level, specifically at the community board level ... and specific to the ten demands of Community Board Nine, are there any of those you're willing to implement?

Bollinger: Since we're still in negotiations, I don't want to discuss specific demands. But the direct answer to your question: I think it's impossible to have a major project and have 100 percent agreement.

I, on the other hand, cannot imagine, just because I believe so strongly in the value of the project for everyone, I cannot imagine that this project will not receive widespread acceptance and embrace ... The more people look at it, take to us think about it, the more they realize that it's true. The process is going well ... because people agree with it. It's not because people are being provided with special funds. We're very limited in how we can negotiate a Community Benefits Agreement and we respect that process. But people are agreeing with this because of the merits, and that's what's most satisfying and what I hope is best. At the end of the day, my hope is that the of overwhelming majority of people who pay attention to this process feel good about it and feel that it's the right thing to do. But I know that there will be some people who continue to object. But I think there will be a small minority.

...

Spectator: You've said repeatedly that Columbia needs to own all of the land in the expansion zone before going forward with this project. At this point it's closer to being achieved than it has been before. Why is it so important for Columbia to own those few remaining properties that it's worth keeping eminent domain on the table?

Bollinger: We need to have the property in order to build a campus that has the feeling of a campus that's able to do the kind of intellectual work that needs to be done, so that people who are working in one field can be close to people working in another field. So that people can move around and be educated and do research that is proximate.

But there are some technical things that are important to the overall success—not just from Columbia's standpoint, but from the community's. One of the things that is so important is underground structure that will have all of the problematic or difficult or dirty parts of a project like this—for the mechanical, the deliveries, the unloading docks, the heating generators, the things that can be put underground. we need to own that property. I have said eminent domain is something that is created to serve public purposes. We would not have parks and streets and public functions if the state did not have the power of eminent domain. We serve a public purpose; we are not a for profit organization. We cure diseases and find cures, and we try to understand the world, and we educate people, and we are basically a public service institution. It's consistent with the basic purposes of eminent domain. I have said we would never ask for eminent domain against private residents. But if needed to fulfill our public service responsibility and if the state were willing use eminent domain ... it would be irresponsible to take it off the table.

All that said, I really hope that we don't have to turn to it and expect that we won't, because I think the way in which we've gone about acquiring properties has set a standard that any reasonable person will find doing business with us the most attractive alternative.

Spectator: Kind of a broader question about ULURP process in general. The issue has been raised by many people that the process may be in need of reform ... Having gone through it on Columbia's end, what are your feelings on it ... and how well it serves the needs of the community?

Bollinger: I'm not going to critique the process at this stage. We're in the middle of it, we haven't finished, and it's serving very useful purposes for us and I think for communities in the city. While everybody always wishes things would go more quickly, I'm not in a position really in all honesty to judge the process in this stage.

All that a University can do for a neighborhood ... is so much more than a Community Benefits Agreement, and that's important, and it's not to take away from it. It's just that all the student activities that go out and help in education and help with all kinds of social services, and the legal aid service that happens, and services of medical facilities. A few of these may be part of a Community Benefits Agreement, but actually most of it will not and it is of enormous benefit ... we need more space for these kinds of services. My point is that we have a kind of eternal relationship with the people who live around there, because Columbia is an institution with no life limit, and all the things that can happen to benefit people around there for a long period of time will be extraordinary.

Spectator: Say this goes through ... even if it's a minority, you still have very vocal opponents if you still have people holding protests at the gates, if you have a sense that people who live there are not okay with this, is that a problem for you, or is that just the cost of doing business?

Bollinger: I would separate out several kinds of people. When you said maybe there are some residents that remain opposed. I would regard that as a continuing matter of concern to us. We want people to feel that this is a good thing, and we're gonna want that a year from now and 10 years from now and 20 years from now. This is not something that ends when we get approvals, assuming and hoping that we do.

On the other hand, there are people who have their own agendas that don't represent anyone. They have their own economic interests that they're trying to maximize, and it's understandable, but I'm not so concerned about that. I'm always willing to try to work with people. So I would separate out different kinds of people.

If we're talking about a minority of people at the end of the day who feel upset that this is happening, we would continue to try to allay concerns. It's not the end of the matter once the city council votes. But there many be some people we can't satisfy and that's always true.

Spectator: Certainly over the past three weeks we've received letters ... from alumni saying as a result of the Ahmadinejad visit the that they're going to withdraw their financial support, or thjat they now felt ashamed to hold a Columbia degree ... does that sort of pressure ever give you pause and ... what do you think will be the long-term significance of this event?

Bollinger: We stand for something here. Among the things we stand for are a robust academic freedom, which means that we will support to the death academic programs that our students, faculty, and administration develop. And it would make no sense—and the vast majority, I would say almost unanimity of people, who are connected to Columbia in one form or another would not want us—to give up that basic principle.

People can get very emotional at particular time when they really don't like someone and they can express it as, "I'll never support Columbia again." But then they think about it and they reestablish their connection.

We do not want an institution that says "these are our values," and then when people threaten to try to pressure you against it, that we sacrifice it. That would be terrible.

I believe we acted out of principle and with integrity, but in something like this you're going to have—and we have—very strong differences of opinion and very reasonable differences of opinion to a certain extent.

I wouldn't fulfill my own academic values if I didn't say that I'm always asking myself the question, "Did I do it right? Is this the appropriate thing to do?" I remain comfortable with the decisions I reached. But I'm an academic and self-doubt is part of what it means to be an academic.

What would be the long-term consequences? I think they would be a source of pride and a renewed commitment to Columbia. I think that as a fundraising matter, I have been through many controversial issues, and I have never ever seen one that, when handled according to what the institution thought was principle and with integrity, there was a significant change in the way people donated to the institution. Some people give more, some people give less—but over time, not a very significant effect. That's my prediction here.

Spectator: Following up on this question of self-doubt, looking at the event of the past few weeks – Ahmadinejad, the invitation of Jim Gilchrist, who was later uninvited, the SIPA grafitti, the whole rigmarole —regarding all those things and more how do you feel you've done as a University President?

Bollinger: I believe as I look back across my career ... I believe I have acted only according to principle in every single instance. Indeed, I defy anyone to find any explanation for my actions other than principle. You can't put it all together ... You obviously can say you disagree with the principle, but I don't think you can look at what I've done and ascribe motives other than principle. But how well I've done, I don't want to be the person to evaluate myself. I can say that if you give me any combination—or all of them—I will give you a total complete answer for why they were decided the way they were.

So a year ago some people said, "it was fantastic that you withdrew the invitation to Ahmadinejad." And every opportunity I had, I said I would support the President coming to campus. I didn't withdraw the invitation.

...

With Gilchrist - students have a wider right to invite people to speak than I do as President, because I can't bring in people for political purposes, students can. ... When students disrupt a speech, and they go from legitimate protest to disruption, that's terrible, and we're not going to stand for that. But was there proper discipline? We have a disciplinary procedure. I do not go out and just ignore the rules we have, and those played themselves out. Should he have been invited back and so on? I said multiple times if anyone wanted to invite him back we would make sure that decision was protected.

The graffiti examples...that's not free speech. That's a combination of destruction of physical property with hate speech. And there are many things you can debate about in our First Amendment class—it's an interesting subject. But the way we've handled this is consistent with principle and free speech.

Spectator: It is your sixth year here and this past month ... a lot has happened. Is there anything in the previous five years that you spent here that in particular has shaped the way you've handled all these incidents that have sort of been clustered together? Would you have done anything different five years ago that now has changed for a different reason?

Bollinger: It's a very good questions and a very legitimate question, and it's one that I find in all honesty I can't answer. That is, would I have done something different about this visit if it had happened three years ago? You know, it's possible. I don't know how to answer that quickly. It's not that don't think it could be answered, it's just that I don't know how to answer it in an interview quickly.

...

Spectator: What in your precious five years as President has shaped the way you have chosen to handle [campus events]?

Bollinger: On that I would say nothing. I try to arrive on decisions, especially those that are really controversial—and I have to say nothing has been as controversial as this—I try to do everything according to “these are the values we believe in.” I will discuss with anyone what those values are, and whether they're appropriate, and whether they should be changed. But we have to act according to values, and we have to try to live up to them. I may fail—I do fail—but that's the only way I know how to live life.

Spectator: What is the status of the Columbia PhD, Kian Tajbakhsh?

Bollinger: I received an email from Kian just saying that he appreciated very much Columbia's ... commitment, and that he looks forward to further conversations. It was very simple. And that's all I know at this point and that's all I can say.

Spectator: Relatedly, you had asked President Ahmadinejad to be given permission to lead a delegation to Iran and he agreed.

Bollinger: I don't think he agreed. I interpreted him as saying to the audience to come and visit. But I have not heard anything from the President of Iran or the representatives of Iran about a possible visit. I just haven't heard anything.

Spectator: Have you made any entreaties to them?

Bollinger: No. I mean, I did make my statement.

Spectator: Are you seriously pursuing that?

Bollinger: I would very much like to do that. And I meant what I said. I thought it would be a meaningful experience for me and us and hopefully for them. But this is something that would have to be very carefully thought through, because I would not want to go and be constrained in the sort of things that I and others could say ... You can just imagine there are all kinds of conditions and things that would have to be sorted out.

Spectator: [In light of both the noose and graffiti incidents happening over such a short period of time], do you think that there's anything the University needs to do or will do to deal with that?

Bollinger: You know, my honest feeling is that the best thing that can happen is for the entire community is to say this is intolerable. We all know from life experience there will be people who, even in spite of near universal condemnation, will continue to do bad things. But whether it's crime generally or terrible policies or terrible ideas—the one thing we count on most is the expression of moral outrage and intellectual outrage ... so that people feel the full weight—people who might be contemplating doing something like this—they feel the full weight of condemnation from the community.