Ahmadinejad Not Welcome At Columbia University
It’s a sad, sad day for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Lee Bollinger has withdrawn Columbia’s invitation to Ahmadinejad. By doing so he overruled a prominent dean, Lisa Anderson.
The dean of Columbia’s school of international and public affairs, Lisa Anderson, had independently invited Mr. Ahmadinejad to speak at the World Leader’s Forum, a year-long program that aims to unite “renowned intellectuals and cultural icons from many nations to examine global challenges and explore cultural perspectives.”
Do extremist Muslim leaders fall in either one of those categories?
Anyway:
In a statement issued yesterday afternoon, Mr. Bollinger said he canceled Mr. Ahmadinejad’s invitation because he couldn’t be certain it would “reflect the academic values that are the hallmark of a University event such as our World Leaders Forum.” He told Ms. Anderson that Mr. Ahmadinejad could speak at the school of international and public affairs, just not as a part of the university-wide leader’s forum.
[...]
Mr. Bollinger told Ms. Anderson that while he finds Mr. Ahmadinejad’s views “repugnant,” she has the “right and responsibility to invite speakers whom she believes will add to the academic experience of our students.”The invitation sparked heated debate and outrage on campus and elsewhere because Mr. Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust denier and the head of a state that sponsors terrorism. The brouhaha over Mr. Ahmadinejad’s invitation has also spotlighted the confusion of many regarding if and how standards should be applied when universities decide whom to welcome to their campuses.
Let me try to answer that: common sense.
Wow, that surely was easy!
26 Responses to “Ahmadinejad Not Welcome At Columbia University”
When will we ever learn that seeking to silence people, especially leaders of great nations, is counterproductive.
And look who silenced him! Some minor league zealot in the health faculty. Didn’t Columbia learn anything from dealing with the David Project this year?
(PhD Columbia 1976)
No – Mr. Lee C. Bollinger is president of Columbia University (he went there after leaving the University of Michigan as president, 2002).
I understand (though disagree) why Mr. Bollinger retracted the invitation – he was indeed trying to make sure that Columbia did not appear in support of Iran and Ahmadinejad. Notice that he still left Dr. Anderson with the ability to invite Ahmadinejad to speak at the school of international and public affairs. It isn’t an outright ban.
Poor baby Mahmoud! It is a disgrace that he was allowed to enter the US let alone speak at the UN and other public venues.
I disagree. I think he and Kim Jong and all of them should be allowed to come and speak as often as they want. He is very honest about his goals (I mean invoking the Hidden Imam at the UN!) and the more people that hear what he really thinks the more we’ll be united in discussing how to confront him.
This is a case in point.
Q: Did the council make the right decision in inviting him?
MRG: I think we made the right decision to meet with him because now we have confirmed what he is. By not seeing him, what do you accomplish? Seeing him confirmed what he is. And he knew what we stand for. For him to say that we were simply mouthing the administration’s positions-obviously he found that that was not so, because we had Republicans, we had Democrats, and independents in the room.
A professor in Public Health gets to overrule the Dean of Int’l Relations in the latter’s own programs. Students denied right to confront world leader live. Pretty.
Health prof has friends in the anti-free speech David Project. Prettier.
Health prof is head of group with ties to the JDO (aka JDL). Prettier still.
In defending Bollinger’s cave-in, the usual suspects say there is no 1st Amendment application to the university. True enough—because no one foresaw it being a problem at institutions whose very existence is predicated on open discussion.
So much for that.
Perhaps, umh, things need a little clarification: I do not believe that the government should be able to limit this (this was more directed at chef: in other words, the 1st amendment has got nothing to do with it since that is about how far government power goes). It is the responsibility of universities themselves. It is up to them, how they treat it, how they think about it.
However; considering that Ahmadinejad is a brutal oppressor who is in favor of killing Jews, homosexuals, girls that have sex (or are suspected of having sex), because he is supporting terrorism, the list goes on and on, it seems to me that one should not treat him as some kind of reasonable academic.
I am really concerned. Why are Chavez and Ahmadinejad roaming the U.S. at all? What is going on? Is anyone else at all confused by their freedom of movement? Or is it just their oil talking, after all? If that is the case, United States citizens should be outraged…and carpooling.
Chef – he is the PRESIDENT of Columbia (and a law prof). Of course he can trump the Dean of International Relations.
Julie – Chavez and Ahmadinejad were here because of the UN conference in New York, NY. I would not be too concerned about their presence – they are too well known to be a security risk in and of themselves. Rest assured, though, that their whereabouts are known at all times. Also, the US is (or shouldn’t be) in the habit of restricting the movement of people here legally just because we don’t like them.
Michael – as usual, I agree with you.
Isn’t it possible to invite him without treating him like a “reasonable academic?” If I were a professor I would delineate his views, then have my students make up questions that would confront him and point out how he uses body language, tone and word choice to influence the audience. By weaving extremist ideals with a diplomatic exterior, you can rally people to your cause while disarming the opposition and moderates. From seeing him a bit on TV, he is a master manipulator. Demagogues of all types have similar characteristics and I think being able to identify these is a must for any citizen. Now I agree the program description of “renowned intellectuals and cultural icons from many nations to examine global challenges and explore cultural perspectives” is complete BS and he should be fought from appearing in that vein, but to say “he is evil and we should ignore him completely” like Bush says is dangerous. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
Mikkel: with such an approach, I would consider it responsible to let him speak.
The problem is quite clearly that this was not the intention of Columbia University (well, of that dean that is). They asked him as if he is somekind of respected academic who could teach the students something valuable.
Your approach would be much more responsible. It could be used as a means to learn how to deal with people like him.
Again, that quite clearly was not the goal this time.
I fully agree with you, it’s just sad that it seems like any issue these days has the two extremes implicitly defined as the only options.
I agree. But luckily we have comment sections in which we can, by debating with others, nuance our positions
Leaders of Great Nations? In the USA we argue about same sex marriage. In Iran they discuss whether or not to Stone people while they are being hung for their sexual preference. Anyone who defends the Iranian leaders makes me sick.
They do not discuss it. They have already agreed to do it and are doing it (although I believe they hang them)…
I tended to think like Mikkel, in that he should be allowed in, and the students should get a chance to critically dissect his view. Then I took a trip to the world leader’s forum at columbia, and read such lovely dpieces like a gem about Talabani entitled “Jalal Talabani: Optimist or Puppet?”
I think that they’re going to pick on anyone who’s sort of for the US, and let anyone who’s not, slide.
Charles:
The U.S. shouldn’t restrict the movement of visitors here legally just because we don’t like them–I agree with that (I knew the UN was the reason they were here).
Then how about…
“because Mr. Ahmadinejad is … the head of a state that sponsors terrorism.” From the NY Sun And he wants to completely destroy one of our allies…I think his words were “wipe from the face of the Earth.” Yes. Wasn’t he also supplying arms to Hezbolla?
I’m not too worried about Chavez. However, his oil is pretty serious business, and he has bought many American friends with his charitable giving. That is sort of scary, more scary than his “devil” speech, actually. Many people here just adore him, and hold him up as a model of diplomacy. Is he? Or is he throwing “fuel on the fire” of our rich/poor disparities and conflicts?
Doesn’t the Secret Service have a visiting dignitary/diplomatic arm of its service that has to protect these people as they move freely about the U.S., paid for by my tax dollars? That’s enough to anger me. And for me to say…go own home now.
Nevermind…they control 40% of sellable oil in world. They can do what they want, even wander around the U.S. as if they are citizens. They could crush our economy tomorrow and only sell their oil to China. They have us by the you-know-whats. That’s why they smile so much when they are on TV…they know.
Julie, would you also be opposed to it if they would use it as some kind of exercise in trying ‘see through’ extremists like Ahmadinejad? How he presents himself, his proganda tricks, &c.? As was Mikkel’s point (if I summarized it adequately)
That being said, they would never use him like that, so because of reality, I believe that no Western university should let him speak.
Obviously that is not responsible…
I’m a bit embarrassed for this sort of thing by college students, Mike. If anyone should be against people like amenajad, castro, or chavez, it should be youthful folks who’s sole purpose is to buckle against authority.
Either be against all unjust authority, or just state at the beginning that you just hate Bush (well, if you read the link, http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/wlf/saifee.html some of them do), and if Bush was for petting cute little bunny rabbits, you would start smiting the poor creatures on the head.
Damn lack of critical skills and failing to recognize shades of grey in “badness”.
Agreed.
Indeed, during my public speaking class at college they showed some Hitler speaches. While almost none of us could understand him (I think one other student knew German, and he was going way too fast for my scant German). You could still get the feeling from the way he held himself, the gestures the vocal differences, etc were all pretty telling of his abilitites to capture an audience.
Having said that though, at times I wonder why we give nutjobs like him and Bin Laden airtime in our nation.
In the U.S. some of us discuss rights for homosexuals. Some Americans don’t think they should have any. They don’t understand why it should be unconstitutional to throw them in jail for engaging in sex in their own homes. They don’t care what would happen to them in prison. And believe it or not there is a very very tiny minority who think the Iranians have the right idea only they’d do it in the name of Christianity instead of Islam.
That having been said I do agree with the people who say that any one listening approvingly to despots of any stripe bugs the heck out of me.
We analyzed Hitler completely and we did know what he said. There is this famous film, trying to think of the name… umh… well, filmed by Riefenstahl -> Triumph des Willens. I learned a lot from that.
In fact, we had to, in philosophy class, write a speech, acting as if one was a nationalist, using propaganda tricks to appeal to people.
Of course, this was meant as to learn to differentiate between rhetoric and reason and see through propaganda.
That was a fascinating issue and, for that as, I learned a lot from it.
This, btw:
Was in the… I think 4rd grade of High school here. That equals, I think 2nd grade of high school in the US -> that is if Junior High takes two years.
In other words: I was approximately 15 years old when we researched this. There is no need, as far as I am concerned, to wait with exploring this until University.
Sing to the tune of “Mrs. Robinson�
http://drgnslyr.tripod.com/midi/mrsrobinson.mid
This message is to you Mr. Ahmadinejad
Jesus warned us all about you (you, you, you)
Can’t you see, Mr. Ahmadinejad
We can’t let you have your way
Hey, hey hey
You’d like to know a little more about nuclear power
You’d like to make some nuclear bombs.
So you will be able to destroy New York and Tel Aviv
And kill a bunch of Americans and Jews.
And this message is to you Mr. Ahmadinejad
Jesus warned us all about you (you, you, you)
It can not be, Mr. Ahmadinejad
Can’t allow you to have the means to blow us away
Nay, Nay, Nay.
Hiding in your private hiding place where the UN never goes
Trying to enrich those nuclear rods
When you succeed you are going to try to see that all Israelis Die
Not to Mention America and part of Europe.
Koo-koo-ka-choo, Mr. Ahmadinejad
Jesus warned us all about you (you, you, you)
Can’t you see, Mr Ahmadinejad, we won’t wait until that day.
Nay, Nay, Nay
Sitting in your palace in Iran on a Sunday afternoon
Plotting your global Jihad.
Praising Hitler Mocking America. Can’t you see what you are forcing us to do.
Pretty soon we’ll have to nuke you.
Now where have you gone, Mr Ahmadinejad
Even Columbia University has turned its back on you (you, you, you)
Time to flee, Mr Ahmadinejad
For soon you will find yourself to be the one to be blown away.
Way, way, way…
We should have let him speak and then asked the mafia to wack him.
One less terrorist to deal with.
http://www.ezfastquotes.com
EZ Fast Quotes