<p>What do you think? Is the administration at Columbia University out of line for extending an invitation to Ahmadinejad and then agreeing to host him? Or are they making a point about free exchange of ideas and free debate, no matter who it is?</p>
<p>Is there educational value in this proposed forum? Yes, very much so.</p>
<p>Our relationship with Iran is a huge issue right now. The discussions that will unfold at the university in the following weeks and months due to his appiearance and the debate that takes place, will be extremely worthwhile.</p>
<p>It crosses the line for Ahmadinejad to visit Ground Zero, but in no way does Columbia University inviting him to speak cross any lines, as there is enormous educational value in that kind of speech.</p>
<p>Let’s hope that the rest of the world sees and understands your point, ASAP! Unfortunately, many will see the op for him to speak as a sign of condoning some of what they stand for–I see your point about opening up discussion and lines of communication, but somehow I feel that He, his regime and the rest of the world may not see it that way. And I hope that in no way does this open up the floodgates for more terrorist activity in this country. I am most worried about the impact of his visit , esp on a college campus, and the message that it may send to other terrorists.</p>
<p>I think it is fine. In fact it is probably better for US-Iran relations than many imagine. At some point, we have to find what common ground we can agree on or alot more people on both sides will die. I seriously doubt any kid listening to him speak is going to go islamic terrorist as a result of him speaking.</p>
<p>I’m all for communicating and trying to put oneself in anothers’ shoes. Inviting him to Columbia doesn’t show approval of Ahmedinejad’s views, it just shows a willingness to dialog.</p>
<p>Does it mean that Columbia has recinded its hate speech codes or are they merely continuing their policy of selective enforcement of them? As long as they are in to dialoguing with psychotics maybe they can invite the Son of Sam down for a chat while they are at it.</p>
<p>We know from the Minutman incident and the banning of ROTC from campus that the leadership of Columbia University doesn’t give a rat’s behind about free speech. They are commited to promoting a political agenda and will ally themselves with known terrorists and criminals like Ahmadinejab to do it. It is a free country and Dr Bollinger can give a forum to whomever he wishes as long as he doesn’t violate any trade embargoes or federal money laundering statutes in the process.</p>
<p>I have no problem with the Irani wingnut from speaking at Columbia as long as the audience is able to engage him in a free Q&A in order to challenge his radical views, particularly as it relates to Israel and the Holocaust. I understand that only written questions will be permitted which diaspoints me because follow up by the questioneer is not possible.</p>
<p>Mamood(?) A. will rarely be publically exposed to hard questioning and ridicule that he will encounter at Columbia. Why are people against this? </p>
<p>Can we claim to have free speech if we demand that radical views are silenced? Not in my opinion. And it is doubly troubling that some are attempting to do this when we already know what the village idiot has previously said.</p>
<p>A number of posters asked; does it provide any education value. That is very important to discern. </p>
<p>A dialog can be a very educational environment. Unfortunately, both sides of a dialog have to be willing to not only express their opinions and points, but be willing to acknowledge that the other person’s opinions and position may be valid and that some of their positions may in fact be wrong. If both sides aren’t willing to admit that some of their opinions and positions may not be right, correct, acceptable, etc… and aren’t willing to possibly change such positions or opinions, then it’s not an educational dialog.</p>
<p>It is then not educational, unless it’s used for some to see “How NOT to act or believe”. If Ahmadinejad’s only objective is to pursuade his audiance, increase sympathy for their decisions towards war with the USA, Israel, etc… and to just find an open forum, then this invitation is not educational. It is disrespectful to those affected by terrorism.</p>
<p>I understand Columbia’s position for free speech and educated their students towards world view. This is the same university that said they would have eagerly invited Adolph Hitler to speak and given him a platform to speak. They did in fact invite Hitler’s embassador to the USA to speak.</p>
<p>So, is it out of line? I guess that depends on your point of view. Based on Ahmadinejad’s past support of terrorism and his position on Israel, I would say that he probably wouldn’t walk into such a forum with an open mind and the true desire to understand other people’s opinion and possibly be willing to change his position. Later… Mike…</p>
<p>If this link works, it sets forth eloquently “why”, and as a Columbia parent, I support the university’s decision, even if I abhor the prior statements and policies of Iran and its leader. He is only one speaker on a day long program that includes talks by the leaders of Chile, Turkmenistan and others, and it sounds like an incredible educational opportunity to me. That being said, I will breathe much easier once the day is over, and I know my daughter and the entire university community are safe.</p>
<p>csshsm, my d is a Barnard student who of course takes class on Columbia’s campus and who lives at Plimpton, so she also crosses through Columbia’s campus several times per day on her way to her classes at Barnard. </p>
<p>My first reaction to the news that Columbia had invited A. to speak was to be horrified. After reading Bollinger’s reasons and his planned agenda for the appearance, I agree with you and think this is a chance to not only be exposed to opposing points of view, but to EXPOSE those viewpoints for what they are. The students on campus, additionally, have the opportunity to protest the man in a very organized and peaceful, yet (hopefully) loud and effective manner. I assume from e-mails which my d has received about the University lifting the normal “noise limits” on such protests that many, many students are planning to do just that.</p>
<p>I agree too that I will feel better once this day is over. My d is a neuroscience major with two jobs and is also a dancer so, when I asked if she planned to take part in any protests (holding my breath…) she said she just did not have time. (lets breath out loudly!)</p>
<p>Another Columbia parent here. I agree with the above two posts. </p>
<p>I do have to ask, though: what kinds of issues are you apprehensive about? I confess I hadn’t been worrying about anything violent up to now. It’s hard to imagine that Ahmadinejad supporters would greet his appearance with violence. Are there American groups in opposition that you are worried about?</p>
<p>This is just not an aspect I had thought of before–could you explain your concerns? Thanks!</p>
<p>Despite the blemish of the Minutemen incident, the Iranian president’s visit is in keeping with regard for the free exchange of ideas. One of my undergraduate History classes at Columbia was taught by a visiting professor from Havana. Scores of Cuban exiles were prepared to protest, but they ultimately understood that the man conducted his classes objectively and with academic rigor. I’ll hope that the Ahmadinejad faces such rigorous questions from students and faculty today. Also, the limp and false regard for ‘impressionable students’ argument by opponents of the Columbia visit doesn’t wash. The School of International and Public Affiars is a GRADUATE school. These aren’t children or 18 year-olds. These students are professionals and professionals-in-training. I doubt if these future diplomats (and probably at least one future CIA agent) are easily hoodwinked.</p>
<p>I say let Ahmahnutjob go wherever he wants, without NYPD protection, of course. Let the chips fall where they may.
In return I expect that Condoleeza Rice or someone else (Bush wouldn’t be articulate enough) be invited to speak at Tehran U.
PS- I work in Newark and used to be able to be the Twin Towers on the way to work and from my building.</p>
<p>I think it is terrific that Ahmadinejad was invited. Since it has been U.S. policy since 1979 to wipe the Islamic Republic of Iran off the face of the earth (and that policy included the use of chemical weapons against Iran by a U.S. client state), I think it magnanimous on the part of Columbia to invite their democratically elected leader (who won’t be in power much longer) to see what makes him tick. </p>
<p>The truly radical view is that of Ms. Mendaciousness, the Secretary of State.</p>
<p>"“PS- I work in Newark and used to be able to be the Twin Towers on the way to work and from my building.”</p>
<p>“I just wondered what this means in the context of this discussion? Thanks.”</p>
<p>It means that Iran was the first country in the world to have its people express support for the American people after 911, with a mass candlelight march in the center of Tehran. Didn’t happen in Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait. But it did happen in Iran.</p>
<p>Thanks Mini. I also am at a loss to understand the Twin Towers reference (and I live next to Newark–my H spent 9/11 with his mobile medical van at Liberty state Park across the harbor, watching the horror, waiting to care for the survivors that never showed up.) But what does that have to do with Iran? </p>
<p>I am always a little unnerved by comments which suggest that violence is welcome to occur (‘let the chips fall where they may’) and this time especially as my son is right there. (CMM and chssm, I get what you meant, now, BTW).</p>
<p>But I am also surprised by the “we expect the same from Teheran” comment. If you disapprove of their policies, wouldn’t you expect better from us, not the same?</p>
<p>I think that his speaking at Columbia is fine; it vividly demonstrates how free speech is possible in the US, while it is not in Iran. I would not, however, expect his speech to reveal much about “what makes him tick” or as an aid to opening dialogue between the US and Iran. Ahmahnutjob will milk the appearance for as much publicity value as possible, use it to boost his stature at home and maybe tailor his comments to try to persuade his audience (and the American media) that he is not as extreme as his domestic speeches suggest he is. I think that those in the audience (and maybe the media) are intelligent enough to understand his game plan.</p>
<p>I do find it disturbing that people in the audience will not be able to ask him questions spontaneously (with the opportunity for followup questions). They should be able to confront him directly about his outrageous past statements about the holocaust and the existence of Israel, as well as Iran’s killing of Americans and support of terrorism around the world. I am also concerned about the potential for screening written questions. A completely open and unscreened question and answer period would have better served Columbia’s educational goals. I wonder why Columbia chose to limit the exchange to written questions.</p>