Letters To the Editor

Quote Misrepresents Comparison of Bollinger and Ahmadinejad

To the Editor:
Your account of the academic freedom panel (“ “, Oct. 16) gave a misleading impression of my remarks by quoting them out of context.
My quip that Presidents Bollinger and Ahmadinejad were “two peas in a pod” referred only to the famous event a couple of weeks ago where neither seemed interested in actual intellectual dialogue. I have been quite critical of President Bollinger’s remarks then but would never equate him more generally with the president of Iran.
My statement that academic freedom does not apply to students was a comment on the classic statement of the meaning of academic freedom issued by the American Association of University Professors in 1940. There, the idea of academic freedom was associated not with students, but with the right of professors to research and teach freely, and with faculty governance of the university. Of course, I believe that students should enjoy freedom of speech and inquiry, whether or not this falls within the technical definition of academic freedom.
Eric Foner
Oct. 17, 2007
The author is the DeWitt Clinton professor of history

Students Must Question Republican Stance on Horowitz and MSA

To the Editor:
Just two weeks ago, David Horowitz, who is coming to Columbia this Friday as a guest of the College Republicans, wrote on his blog that “the MSA [Muslim Students Association] is a creation of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas and is... part of the Islamo-fascist jihad.” Horowitz has made it very explicit whom he means when he attacks “Islamofascists”, in the “Islamofascism Awareness Week” that the Republicans are sponsoring.
It seems to me that the Republicans have an obligation to clarify for the Columbia community whether they stand by this sentiment: do the Republicans believe that their fellow students who are Muslim are members of a terrorist front group? Members of the GOP executive board have published two op-eds in the Spectator in which they could have answered this question, but both chose instead to whine defensively about “political correctness” and the refusal of other students to “put aside their politics and differences about the meaning of a term”. At the MSA’s Eid-ul-Fitr dinner on Sunday, it’s hard to think of a group that wasn’t present—besides the Republicans.
Words have consequences. New York Post, September 16: “In what Long Island cops called a bias attack... Iranian-American Zohreh Assemi was called a ‘terrorist’ and told to ‘get out of town’... two men... smashed her hand with a hammer, sliced her with a boxcutter and kicked her before taking about $2,000... and scrawling anti-Muslim slurs on her mirrors.” And as we’ve seen repeatedly in the last few weeks, an Ivy League school is not immune to hate crimes. Will the Republicans tell us where they stand, or are they simply behaving as coy provocateurs, too childish and too privileged to understand that their malicious antics have real effects on real people?

David Judd, SEAS ’08
Oct. 23, 2007

Editorial Misrepresents “Islamo-Facism Awareness Week”

To the Editor:
In an article published Friday, the editorial board insinuated that by inviting David Horowitz, the College Republicans are being purposefully divisive and decidedly unproductive. I feel, as others must, that the dispute over whom should be invited to campus is growing tiresome. Yet, the same editorial board that called Columbia’s decision to invite Ahmadinejad, a known mass-murderer, “an impressive demonstration of the University’s respect of free speech and open debate” is now condemning a well-known alumnus and the CRs for inviting him. By preemptively announcing that our event has no academic merit, such articles foster an environment where students cannot impartially approach new ideas. These actions lead to close-mindedness, stifling the potential for academic diversity. Ironically, this is the same environment that recent articles accuse Horowitz of engendering.
While the arguments made by those who denounce Horowitz will not go unnoticed, neither should they dominate the dialogue leading up to this event. Ultimately, critics will make what they wish of the event, and protesters will shape it to meet their own agenda. Yet, such actions fly in the face of the spirit of Columbia and the values advocated here. Rather than letting ideas grow stagnant and unchallenged, I encourage those students who remain uninfluenced by such hypocrisy to bring their own insight and perspective to the discussion on Friday. If Columbia is to live up to its name, then it must truly be a place of free learning, and to me, learning has always meant accepting the test of the unfamiliar.
Finally, the CRs are not “celebrating” Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week. Rather, we are hosting events aimed to address a sensitive and pressing issue. These events are not limited to Columbia—they are part of a nationwide effort spearheaded by Horowitz. Nevertheless, Horowitz’s claims find considerable resonance here at Columbia. When Horowitz speaks of the horrors of extremism, he is also speaking of the type of bias that has recently permeated our campus. Ignoring these incidents or Horowitz will not make the issues they represent go away. Instead of avoiding the unfamiliar, come hear Horowitz speak on Oct. 26 and decide for yourselves.

Rebecca Dunnan, CC ’08
Oct. 21, 2007
The author is the director of public relations of the Columbia University College Republicans.