An apology is in order!
Silly, Silly Man!
Those who sharply criticized Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs President Lee C. Bollinger for inviting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak owe him a galaxy sized apology. You know who you are so I’m not naming names/blogs/media outlets. Lee Bollinger’s opening statement and questions, along with many of the students’ questions reduced President Ahmadinejad to a melted ice cream cone on a hot sunny day.
Watching President Ahmadinejad squirm around on questions and deliver some downright silly answers today was amusing, embarrassing (for him), and at times weird. His only “somewhat point” was why Palestinians have to suffer for the Holocaust (referring to their displacement). We can talk about that intelligently in another forum with DIFFERENT people with REAL answers. Not you President Ahmadinejad.
I love the freedom of speech.
30 Responses to “An apology is in order!”
Ok, now let ROTC back on campus. Then everyone is happy.
[...] No, it's not. So what if Bollinger went after a man who should not have been on the stage in the first place? [...]
I’m sure the fussmakers won’t care.
I await the invitation to Harvard’s ex-prez Larry Summers to speak at Columbia. As he was denied by UC recently, he probably has an opening in his calendar. (“Outrageous! Beyond the pale!” Columbia’s faculty would scream. “Inviting the president of Iran or even Hitler is one thing…but Larry Summers? We must draw a line somewhere!”)
More to the point, few universities have been particularly welcoming to Israeli leaders, regardless of freedom of speech. Adminstrations in a shameful number of universities have not displayed the “courage” of Columbia’s President – in defending the right of a leader of a theocratic tyranny to speak, against protests in and out of the university – when the speaker is pro-Israeli.
Ahmadinejad is not the leader of Iran.
I’m not aware of this. Iin being consistent, I would have no problem with a pro-Israeli speaker at a university. Although they would probably not be NEARLY as silly as Ahmadinejad was.
And to Chris’ point, I’m well aware that the Supreme Leader of Iran is the Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He’s the REAL problem in my humble opinion.
This isn’t an “Well-if-we-let-this-guy-speak-in-public-,-anyone-who-has-previously-not-been-invited-(-including-my-Uncle-Bob-)-or recently-uninvited-(-Bob-again-)-needs-to-be-allowed-to-speak-at-a-university” issue. It’s not a piggy-back-any-other-complaints-about-universities issue.
It’s an example of free speech working.
Or are the ideas espoused by Ahmadinejad so fearsome that we must protect ourselves against them.
I don’t have any problem with Ahmedinijad speaking at any American university. But the problem I see here is one of hypocrisy. ROTC is still banned on campus after almost 40 frickin years, and now the excuse is don’t ask, don’t tell. Apparently it’s ok to have a guy speak who represents a government that executes gays, but it’s not ok to have an organization that obeys a law passed by our own civilian government.
I am FOR free speech – I just want some consistency.
At least we can take solace in knowing our President is not the DUMBEST on the planet. #2, but not #1.
I did not realize that free speech requires a military presence on the campus.
Perhaps I am unable to see how not having an ROTC on campus while allowing foreign diplomats (with not all of whom are we in good relations) to speak at events is a contradiction.
Kerry Statement on Ahmadinejad Visit to U.S. and Speech at Columbia University…
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was in N.Y. today delivering a speech at Columbia University. Before the speech Columbia University President Lee Bollinger ripped into Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, “going through a long list of do…
As a Jew, I heartedly support Ahmadinejad speaking a Columbia. Obviously, I don’t agree with many of his positions but it’s important for Americans to see him in a human context. He may be a dumb racist but the pure demonization of him is not conducive to resolving our differences. I noticed he softened his position on the Holocaust to ” it’s a historical fact that needs more study” from firm denial. The more exchanges and communications between peoples, the better we can reach understanding and accomodations.
As a next step I would like to see Bush answering questions from students of Tehran University.
While many said handing this guy a podium to speak would be legitamizing him, I think its the other way around. Let him talk so people who might otherwise give him a pass can see how ignorant he is when actually confronted. It was brilliant. And very New York.
“Yo, come here and say that to my face…”
Iran’s equivalent to GWB LOL.
I have no problem with him speaking at Columbia, but I think Entropy makes a good point.
Not so much the ROTC, but the fact that Columbia’s administration went to the mat to defend the leader of a repugnant regime’s right to speak on campus…yet has been not so quick to defend the right of conservatives to speak on campus.
Case in point, in the wake of the Minutemen fiasco, the administration’s solution to intimidation delivered by Leftists on campus against campus student Republicans inviting conservative speakers has been to restrict the number of people allowed to listen to conservative speakers.
University administrations across the United States, and also in Canada, the UK and Europe, have similarly been reluctant – and sometime refusing – to defend speakers supporting Israel.
What is the difference? Is it the point made by that infamous Kos diarist yesterday – supposedly a Jewish lesbian – who declared her crush on Ahmadinejad because of his attacking Bush?
Are speakers to be defended on university campuses only when they are leftist or anti-American? Columbia’s example, and that of numerous other administrations, suggests this is the case.
The concept of free speech goes beyond mere speakilng at a podium. And the banning of ROTC extends to recruiting as well, which certainly does involve speaking at a podium.
The irony is that the military has no say about the DADT policy because it is federal law. Yet the military is banned while the university insists it is still entitled to federal monies. Ahmedinejad only adds to the irony and, dare I say, hypocrisy.
Like I said, how is it ok to, at the same time, give the podium to one who is essentially responsible for executing gay people, while at the same time denying the podium to those forced by the US government to adhere to a policy of discrimination – all the while receiving money from that government? If you can justify that, then please, let’s hear the argument. My preference is that both should be allowed to speak.
And there’s a larger issue as well. The perception among some is that the military is overly representative of “red state” interests and that it doesn’t accurately reflect the American political melting pot. There is some merit to that argument, but it is not really surprising when one looks at the universities that have ROTC programs and those that don’t. The northeast, for example, has so few ROTC programs that it is a negligible source of officers for the military. That is a serious problem.
[...] all owe Columbia University President Lee Bollinger a big, fat apology (via Instapundit). So does “T-Steel” writing at The Moderate Voice (via [...]
[...] said, the first commenter here has it right — let ROTC back on campus and then all will be [...]
IMO, there were two parties that ended up looking foolish. One was Ahmedinejad, but the other was the president of Columbia U and the mob mentality of an emotional public that he was trying to placate.
How would we react if Pres. Bush were at the Sorbonne to make a speech, and the host kicked things off by blaming him for Iraqi civilian deaths?
Eiither extend a public platform to someone in a dignified way or don’t do it at all. Asking tough questions is NOT the same as making bombastic remarks and characterizations. The differece, like the essence of diplomacy, is something that too many Ameticans can’t seem to comprehend.
We throw away every chance that comes along to demonstrate the difference between dmocracy and a dignified treatment of issues on on hand with the despotic and lying methods of our opponents (and guests).
Instead, the president of Columbia U and much of the public chose to imitate those we hate and deride. Looking form the outside, it becomes hard to tell who is weating the white hat in terms of grace vs hypocrisy.
Ahmadinejad is quite capable of making a fool of himself on his own, when being asked appropriate questions. There was no need to give him competion in that area and thus lose the edge in evident rationality and dignity.
HOW you play the game matters a whole, whole lot.
domajot – Your last comment is one of the best and most insightful I’ve read on the Ahmedinejad episode.
I agree with Doma as well. Bollinger obviously attacked Ahmadinejad in response to the storm of criticism he received from the public in general and from Columbia alums in particular.
He should have trusted his students and their questions to reveal Ahmadinejad’s true nature to the world. This was a golden opportunity to escape the media hype which surrounds the Iranian president,and get him to defend his more outrageous statements on the record.
As it is it was illuminating that
h retreated from Holocaust denial, and stated his delusionary positions
about homosexuality and women’s rights in Iran. That is an education that money can’t buy.
I agree with you too, Doma. Tough questions would have been appropriate, and not allowing him off easy on the answers. But stating as a foregone conclusion that the man is a “petty dictator” and “foolish” was rather odd, IMO. If you’re not going to give him his say, then don’t invite him. If you are, then let him speak and then give the appropriate rebuttal in the Q&A.
It makes me wonder what people mean when they say we should engage in diplomacy with Tehran. I assume people realize this isn’t the way diplomacy is done, so how would that work? Either you feel that a person is someone you can have a respectful dialogue with (regardless of differences) or you don’t. Personally I think it’s the latter with Ahmanedijhad, but I still say that no matter what your opinion on that, you can’t try to have it both ways.
Well, agreement all around with Doma I guess! I would just like to note that guest hospitality is taken very seriously in most parts of the ME. I don’t think Bollinger’s tirade will play very well in the ME because it’s so completely contrary to their notions of how a host should act.
[...] an exemplar of the notion that freedom of speech is a two-way street. (Which T-Steel covers nicely here and does not dissaude me from my view that Ahmadinejad has nevertheless made major foreign policy [...]
This comment has been edited by TMV:
And f***ing how. It was weird to actually have knowledge of how this was going to go down, and to see how stupid so many people are. OK, not weird, just another day on the Web.
Not to any sense of surprise!
* * *
We hear that all the time about Bush. And it would have been right at home being said about Bush before the UN General Assembly.
“I don’t think Bollinger’s tirade will play very well in the ME because it’s so completely contrary to their notions of how a host should act.”
As bad as we have gotten, I’m still confident we are still above needing ettiquette lessons from ME gov’t officials. Besides, he’s a head of state addressing a civilian institution. The formalities you can expect at a state dinner don’t come with that.
Submitted for Your Approval…
First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher’s Council for this week’s vote. Council li…
Bollinger Rope-A-Dopes Ahmadinejad and Many Conservative Blogs: Apologies Thin on the Ground…
Not Bolllinger’s first rodeo, but it certainly was his best. “Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator.” “Frankly and in all candor, Mr. President, I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these q…