<p>I don’t believe that anyone, especially someone of distinction or stature, who has such contraversial ideological views should have access to an open forum; UNLESS the ability to question, confront, and/or debate those contraversial positions is made available. If not, then it just becomes an open forum for that person to pursuade others into their way of thinking. </p>
<p>If the argument is used that the university is a place for learning and education, and that this forum is an opportunity for such learning, then the education has to go both ways. That is the purpose of a debate, discussion, etc… It allows both sides to see the other’s perspective and re-evaluate their position. Either to enforce or question it. A one sided forum is not educational. Pursuading another person to understand or accept your position is not educational. The person needs to have their opinions challenged in order to provide true education.</p>
<p>Now, if the sole purpose of a speaker is to pursuade others to change their opinion or to develope sympathy towards the speaker’s position, then so be it. At least acknowledge that purpose. But to try and use the excuse that it’s educational is wrong. If the receiver can’t compare 2 or more positions and the speaker can’t look introspectively at their position when it’s questioned, then it’s not educational. If however his forum is open to Q&A and debate, then I am all for him speaking there if the students and faculty want him to. Later… Mike…</p>
<p>FWIW, my d just called and said she watched the speech on campus (it was on a big screen on the Low Library steps) with thousands of other students. I am so glad she did. She said they all gave Bollinger a standing ovation after his opening remarks (she was crying as was I at home watching on CNN); she also said she spontaneously screamed out loud “WHAT???” when A said they have no homosexuals in Iran. </p>
<p>Very interesting and, I think, a good thing that he was allowed to speak and that he first had to listen to Bollinger say what we all wanted to.</p>
<p>He just means that’s the goal. Homsexuality is a capital offense in Iran.</p>
<p>I’m torn. The point that Columbia would have invited a pre-war Hitler carries the point for me. On the negative, the man was charismatic and able to spin and sell his ideas to a shocking number of people. Giving him another forum unchallenged borders the unspeakable. On the positive, you’d come closer to exposing him for what he really was by making sure everything he said and wrote was widely distributed. Never give 'em a place to hide.</p>
<p>I suspect the best thing is to give the man a forum while stringently not endorsing what he says. As a matter of fact, the more he says what he believes and intends to do, the better. Sunlight really is the best disinfectant.</p>
<p>The US has an ugly history with Iran. That doesn’t mean what this man has said he wants is right or that we should ignore the stated goals of its Islamic Revolution.</p>
<p>All of this attention paid to MA (including by this administration) gives the guy too much credit.</p>
<p>He doesn’t have real power in Iran and thus, resorts to making outlandish and anti-West and anti-Israel comments in order to be attacked by Western and Israeli leaders in order to shore up support from his base (religious country folk) – a tried and true tactic used by politicians all over the world.</p>
<p>“That doesn’t mean what this man has said he wants is right.”</p>
<p>Very good point. Really it is best policy to let him do his own speaking to students rather than our political mouthpieces speaking. Give him his own shovel and see how deep he digs himself in.</p>
<p>In my view, he is a world leader with lots of power – and therefore the invitation to speak is completely defensible. I don’t understand why anyone believes in limits on free speech. But I agree letting him visit Ground Zero for his own propaganda purposes crosses a line…</p>
<p>Bollinger did a great job in his introduction!</p>
<p>So when Bill Clinton gets to go to Tehran University, the president of the University can introduce him as the cruel murderer who in his genocide, killed a million people, half of them children, more than Pol Pot, and had his soon-to-be Secretary of State say, “we think, the price is worth it” , without it ever being questioned by Congress. <a href=“http://www.fff.org/comment/com0311c.asp[/url]”>http://www.fff.org/comment/com0311c.asp</a>
and then lied about WMD to cover it up;</p>
<p>Then he can introduce George Bush as a known liar and deceiver, who used lies and deceptions to cover up his crimes which have created two million external refugees, and sent a general to oversee the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad.</p>
<p>When they visit the Ground Zero of Iran, where half a million are buried, there will be a difference: unlike in New York, where Iran had no role in the hideous incident whatsoever (unlike, unwittingly, some retired U.S. Air Force officers), the U.S. was responsible through the Rumsfeld Handshake for those who died in the chemical weapons attacks. Now, of course, allowing them to visit for propaganda purposes would cross a line - but a line I think worth crossing if there is going to be a lasting peace.</p>
<p>Mini, I just cannot agree with your assertion that the Clinton embargo of Iraq is equivalent to genocide. One could argue that it was an ineffective strategy. How much would the population have suffered if Hussein had used his remaining resources wisely and fairly?</p>
<p>In all fairness, padad, mini’s making no such assertion, but putting other people’s words in this fictional college president’s mouth. UNICEF’s word on the children under 5 thing, I believe.</p>
<p>BTW, if Saddam had been that kind of leader, he wouldn’t have been the kind of murderous, Stalinist ■■■■■■■ to have started all this in the first place.</p>
<p>“Scores of Cuban exiles were prepared to protest, but they ultimately understood that the man conducted his classes objectively and with academic rigor.”</p>
<p>Right. That plus the fact they would be expelled.</p>
<p>BTW how many of the protesters who attacked the Minuteman speaker were expelled?</p>
<p>Columbia is a little leftwing nutball world unto itself. Nobody takes it seriously.</p>
<p>“Now I just hope George Bush (or Bill Clinton for that matter) will go to Iran and answer questions from the Iranian press. They might start with Clinton’s murder of Iraqi children”</p>
<p>So mini when exactly to Saddam cease being the puppet leader of a client state that used chemical weapons on America’s enemies and become the valiant leader fighting to save his starving childern from a ruthless and heartless embargo? I just want to get the timeline straight.</p>
<p>I listened to news reports of Prexy Bollinger’s introduction and thought, "oh there is another recruiting tool for Muslim extremists and young men on the fence here at home and abroad. Does anyone not believe that his remarks werre not headline news throughout the Muslim world? </p>
<p>I would have preferred a curt introduction and a tongue lashing in private.</p>
<p>Quote: “I would have preferred a curt introduction and a tongue lashing in private.”</p>
<p>Why, so this bone head is allowed to have a forum in the name of “Freedon of Speech and education” but Bollinger isn’t allowed to say what’s on his mind? Columbia wanted to press the point to allow this jerk to speak there, they can live with whatever.</p>
<p>I assume you mean “Columbia can live with whatever consequences their hosting of Ahmadinejad and Bollinger’s opening speech causes.”</p>
<p>Well, yes and no. Many people probably see Bollinger’s speech as a reflection of Americans’ opinion on Iran and Ahmadinejad as a whole. And since there is always room for misinterpretation, the speech can also be seen as an American indictment on Islamic values as a whole.</p>
<p>What happened at Columbia University will not just have consequences pertaining to Columbia University. There might be American consequences. We don’t know yet.</p>