<p>
Agreed. The problem is that Columbia and similar universities are so far left that there is no balance of thought. Tenure and unfair hiring practices ensures that these horrible professors will continue in place.</p>
<p>Razorsharp, would you mind terribly if I ask you to back up that statement [post #61]? Which professors are horrible? How many “leftwing nutball” individuals are there among the administration and faculty? Is Zbignew Zbnewski [former U.S. National Security Advisor] in that crowd?</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>People who commit genocide always have their reasons. The fact is, he killed half a million children (normalized for the U.S. population, that’s more than six million), his soon-to-be Secretary of State not only admitted it but said, as the whole world was watching, “we think the price was worth it”, and then concocted a big lie in early 1998 to cover it up, the lie that helped precipitate the invasion of Iraq under the next Pres.</p>
<p>I had most of my mother’s would-be family killed under the Nazis, so I say this with some care: those who deny the Clinton genocide are holocaust deniers (it’s just a different holocaust). </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?”</p>
<p>I don’t think you meant this question seriously, but I’ll take it at face value. He stopped using chemical weapons on Iran with the blessing of the Rumsfeld Handshake in 1988, and turned his attentions to attacking another oil power (Kuwait) several years later. The U.S. wasn’t particularly happy about it, which I think likely surprised him. As to when he was a valiant leader? Never - he was a really nasty guy. As we know, and as Clinton knew as he killed the children, Saddam Hussein had virtually nothing to fight with.</p>
<p>Mini, where does one stop with responsibility. I am curious how you think of the following situations:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Serious pollution in China is already killing people, especially young children. Do we consumers in the west share responsibility? Are we innocent if we are not pro-active?</p></li>
<li><p>One could argue that less people would have been killed if China did not resist the Japanese invasion in 1939 (or any country for that matter). The Chinese resistance was totally ineffective, and one may argue that a Japanese occupation will likely be just as transitory as the Mongols. </p></li>
<li><p>Millions of Chinese citizens perished in famine during Mao. Certainly economic sanctions and embargoes by the West contributed to the misery. How is that different from the Clinton sanction?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>As a Columbia parent, I’ve thought a lot about this in the last few days, and I believe the invitation was wrong for these reasons:</p>
<ol>
<li> This was not about giving a forum to someone whose free speech was being denied, or about academic freedom. A. already had a forum at the UN, not to mention the press club, and Sixty Minutes. A. REQUESTED an invitation to speak at Columbia because he fancies himself an academic and being invited and listened to by faculty and students at a prestigious academic institution would make it seem back home-- where he is unpopular – as if the academy takes him seriously. If he’d been invited to go to a class on Iranian politics or history by a professor ready to debate him, or an Iranian dissident to debate him, I would have defended that in the name of academic freedom. (I doubt A. would have accepted that kind of invitation, which would have demonstrated the truth that he is an expert spin master and an ideologue who never had any intention of answering questions.)</li>
<li> Instead, it was all about Bollinger who issued the invitation without regard to its impact on the institution he leads. He put lots on the line:fundraising, the need for political approvals to expand into the neighborhood, the safety of students and property when every nutcase in the city might be drawn to the campus. Security seems to have been excellent, for which I’m glad. But I think his ego came first, the institution second.</li>
<li> Because of all the pressure Bollinger was under, he felt compelled to issue that introduction attacking the man he had invited. Even some of the students found it offensive. How does that rudeness play in the Middle East? It allowed A. this morning to call it an example of the way America bullies the world. It might have saved Bollinger with AIPAC, but it was very risky.</li>
<li> A. won. He got across the points he wanted to: that Palestinians are paying the price for the Holocaust, that the Holocaust is as open to question as any theory in physics (not a denial of the Holocaust, but not exactly saying he was wrong to deny it), and that the US is hypocritical for denying Iran and other countries the right to arm themselves with nuclear weapons while pursuing them ourselves. I’m not going to argue these points, just to say that they were aimed at the Muslim street from the Columbia stage, where they may play very well, and no one really countered them.</li>
<li> All the attention he generates, even with comments like the one about there being no homosexuals in Iran (maybe that’s what he hopes for, after they execute them all), makes him seem more important than I believe he is in Iran. It gets him press, press, press, and makes it seem as if he speaks for his whole country.</li>
<li> My biggest fear is that this has played right into the hands of those in Iran who want war with us and – even more important – those in Washington who want to attack Iran. Bollinger added his voice to those who demonize this guy as if he represents all of Iran. Was I the only one who caught eerie echoes of the way we talked about Sadam Hussein before invading Iraq? It was dangerous dabbling in international affairs, and I don’t think we know yet how it will all play out.</li>
</ol>
<p>Sac: a very well-reasoned and well-written expression of your thoughts on this matter and I respect you for holding them.</p>
<p>However, I do want to point out a couple of things, as I understand them to be:</p>
<p>Ahmadinejad was invited to speak as one of several world leaders who spoke at the SIPA world leaders forum. He wanted to come last year, but could not because of security concerns.</p>
<p>A. accepted this invitation. A contingency of its being extended was that Bollinger would be frank and up-front about pointing out very real concerns that many have about the man and his policies. It was also stated to him that he would be issued direct questions. </p>
<p>It is true that he chose not to respond completely to these questions and tried (pitifully, in my opinion) to beat down what Bollinger said with his cries of “How rude!” (not in so many words, but you get the point). It’s true that what took place will most likely be “spun” to make him look as good as possible to his “followers”. It is also true, though, that he further reinforced negative impressions with his assinine remarks about homosexuals and women. </p>
<p>Yes, it’s risky to allow those with whom we disagree to speak. And, yes, it’s risky to speak out firmly against those people, as President Bollinger so eloquently did. Howver I feel it is much more dangerous to try and draw lines around those for whom free expression is allowed and even more dangerous to be silent in the face of evil. </p>
<p>Columbia did not have to have this man speak but I, personally, am glad they did.</p>
<p>Churchmusicmom – While it’s true there is a World Leaders forum going on at Columbia, it’s also true that A. asked to be invited. Last year he was invited by the then-SIPA dean, but Bollinger withdrew the invitation, saying the logistics were too difficult to arrange at the last minute. I believe the flack he took for that from some circles, as well as personal bruising from some other incidents at Columbia in the last few years, led Bollinger to decide to go for it this year. Then, in the face of all the flack he got for going for it, he felt he had to deliver that speech.</p>
<p>Anyone who ever thought A. intended to answer direct questions has never seen this man in action. He’s very good at what he does, and like all good politicians, went in with every confidence he could use whatever was thrown at him to advance his own message and image, which is exactly what he did.</p>
<p>However asinine his remarks seemed to Columbia students, they were not aimed at Columbia students, but to the larger world. My point is that it was not Bollinger’s role to let Columbia as an institution be used by this man. Appearing at an academic institution suited A.'s purpose. It wasn’t that Columbia was the only place he could speak.</p>
<p>I couldn’t agree with you more about free speech. No one denied A. free speech. He spoke at the World Affairs Council last year, on TV and at the press club, and at the UN this year. I am questionning why Columbia felt compelled to invite him. Again, if he’d been invited into a classroom where there would have been a real give and take, or to a debate with a dissident, and Bollinger had defended the prof’s right to bring A. into the classroom, I’d have been on Bollinger’s side. That is Academic Freedom, which is related to, but a slightly different issue than free speech.</p>
<p>Instead, I feel that by issuing the invitation in the name of the whole institution, to a forum where there was never any chance A. would actually respond to questions, Bollinger allowed himself and Columbia to be used by A. – a man who is not only unpopular in his own country, but not the supreme leader that Bollinger seemed to paint him as. I question whether Bollinger had the university’s interests as his priority. He should because he is not just a professor, but the president of the institution. </p>
<p>As to A.'s claims of rudeness being ineffective, I think that it plays very differently in other cultures. His line that Bollinger was attempting to vaccinate the students before they ever heard A. speak was, I thought, actually pretty clever. A.'s remark this morning that Bollinger’s introduction was analogous to the way the U.S. attempts to bully the world was, again I think, clever. It will resonate. What did this appearance and Bollinger’s introduction do to help those in Iran who want to get rid of this guy? The more he succeeds in seeming to stand up to the U.S., the more he solidifies his position.</p>
<p>I do acknowledge it was a very exciting day for Columbia students, and that they felt they were at the center of history. I do remember that feeling. But, as I said, I don’t think we’ve seen yet how it will ultimately play out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Otoh, there isnt any balance of thought with these statements either.</p>
<p>Based on your two assertions, Im rather surprised that Bollinger confronted/challenged Ahmadinejad, instead of lavishing him with praise.</p>
<p>Btw, historically, its been the right-wing nutjobs who have supported the US govt. propping up military dictators around the globe (including Saddam Hussein).</p>
<p>From an overseas perspective, Bollinger sounded like an old weasel. Who invites the president of a sovereign state to visit–and then spends 20 self-important minutes justifying that invitation with a series of insults? Hospitality is central to the Arab culture–and Bollinger spoke as though Ahmadinejad was an unwashed, uninvited criminal. Every Arab must be scratching their head. </p>
<p>That was big CYA speech from Bollinger and his ‘tough’ talk had absolutely no impact on the supposed ‘dialogue’. Too bad Columbia didn’t have a skilled moderator who could draw Ahmadinejad into meaningful ‘dialogue’.</p>
<p>Also, sorry, but IMO, it’s too bad the laughter from the Columbia audience came across as a little tittle. It was a fraction of the protest that should have followed those remarks. The students sounded like awed lemmings. Presented with an magic opportunity to defend their positions, they blew it.</p>
<p>Have a gander at the Burmese monks for a truer picture of brave response.</p>
<p>^ Haha. I love it and couldn’t agree more!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m an American college student, despise many of the beliefs that Ahmadinejad has professed, and agree with that statement.</p>
<p>Either Columbia should not have hosted MA at all, or they should have hosted him and allowed him to speak first or not introduced him with such confrontational terms. Its like Bollinger purposely courted controversy, then wanted to prove what a “good guy” he was by surprising everyone by how confrontational and insulting he could be when the day finally came. </p>
<p>All the justification Columbia gave about conducting a “genuine debate” and exchange of ideas with the Iranian Pres is sort of rendered moot by Bollinger’s choice to remind everyone just what a naughty person MA’s been before he’s even spoke a word. Either don’t invite him, or invite him and let him speak first instead of essentially setting him up.</p>
<p>I think Columbia students are smart enough to have known and understood Ahmadinejad’s faults before Bollinger tried on the bada!$ pants.</p>
<p>“I don’t think you meant this question seriously, but I’ll take it at face value. He stopped using chemical weapons on Iran with the blessing of the Rumsfeld Handshake in 1988, and turned his attentions to attacking another oil power (Kuwait) several years later. The U.S. wasn’t particularly happy about it, which I think likely surprised him. As to when he was a valiant leader? Never - he was a really nasty guy. As we know, and as Clinton knew as he killed the children, Saddam Hussein had virtually nothing to fight with.”</p>
<p>First I was entirely serious with that question and intended it to point out a serious fallacy in your logic. Iraq could hardly be a “client state” of the United States if we could not control it. There was a coincidense of interests at the time. Saddam did not want to lose a war he started and we did not want Iran to win. In fact we did not want either side to win as it would have brought on a wider war, gretare instability, and likely even greater loss of life.</p>
<p>Our interests were no doubt selfish but nothing we did compelled Saddam to continue the war and nothing in the later embargo compelled him to starve his people while building gold plated crappers in his palaces and bribing UN officials.</p>
<p>If you call me a name or otherwise anger me and I kick my dog or beat my wife it is not your fault. It is mine. Saddam made a decision that he would rather starve his children than either lower his standard of living or submit to UN weapons inspectors that is on him not Bill Clinton - God knows Bill has enough sins of his own to atone for. He doesn’t need to be taking on Saddam’s though I will admit he does love apologizing for stuff other people did.</p>
<p>“I doubt A. would have accepted that kind of invitation, which would have demonstrated the truth that he is an expert spin master and an ideologue who never had any intention of answering questions.”</p>
<p>I doubt it too but mostly because you would be hard pressed to find anyone on the Columbia faculty who doesn’t embrace any opponent of Western of any aspect of western culture with the exception of socialism.</p>
<p>The problem with what Columbia did was it strengthened A’s political stature at home and abroad. It said t the world that his dispicable ideas are worthy of consideration and arguement.</p>
<p>“Hospitality is central to the Arab culture”</p>
<p>Of course Ahamlunatic is not an Arab and his own record of hospitality towards American diplomats and kidnapped British marines is a little questionable…</p>
<p>
How about Columbia professors who are religious bigots? I am assuming, of course, that you would consider hating Jews religious bigotry. How about watching the film Columbia Unbecoming. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.columbiaunbecoming.com/[/url]”>http://www.columbiaunbecoming.com/</a></p>
<p>How about this guy:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Apparently the Middle East department at Columbia has plenty of bigots to go around. </p>
<p>There is one. Do you want some more?</p>
<p>Sorry for not letting you respond, LakeWashington, but I forgot to include one of my favorite left wing nutjobs posing as a scholor at Columbia: Nicholas De Genova. He said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Gosh, no wonder the ROTC is not allowed on Columbia’s campus – DeGenova would require them to complete homework of fragging each other.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Glenn Hubbard, for one, dean of the business school, a Republican who almost became Fed chairman.</p>
<p>This statement is just too ridiculous. I came on here to argue against what Bollinger did, and I chose the parent’s forum hoping to avoid the kind of silly stuff that passes for debate among the high school students on the Columbia forum.</p>
<p>sac - I believe a study was done of faculty party affiliation at the Columbia Journalism School and it was something like 15 to 1 Democrat. Maybe it is not as bad in the Graduate School of Business or the Economics department but it is likely worse in the English department and the Anthropology department. The political leanings of the unregistered and registered independents on Columbia’s faculty is probably too frightening for words.</p>
<p>Columbia is not the place to go to broaden your intellectual horizons or look for diversity of thought and opnion. There may be a stray conservative out back of the wood pile but he won’t be easy ti find.</p>
<p>And what does the political registration of faculty as Democrats (oh, the horror) or Independents (even worse?) have to do with the topic of this thread? </p>
<p>Oh I get it, the President of Iran was invited because he’s a flaming liberal, maybe even a socialist. Or perhaps he represents the diversity of thought and opinion you’re looking for?</p>
<p>Again, my problem with the Bollinger invitation, followed by his lecturing A. from the stage, is that he has helped inflate the importance of a dangerous man who was in political trouble in Iran, and in doing so has played into the hands of warmongers in Washington and Iran. And that he did it without true regard for the institution that he leads. Bollinger was naive, at best, and chose an extremely dangerous time to step onto world stage. There are certainly many faculty who have expressed their disagreement with what he did, including the dean of the law school, a prominent neuroscientist, and a professor of Iranian history – though I haven’t checked whether they are registered as Democrats or Republicans.</p>
<p>As for the education Columbia offers, whatever the political stripes of individual faculty members, it is conservative in the true sense of the word. Its core curriculum is based on the great books of the Western world, and conserving the ideas and values expressed in them – a curriculum that most other universities have abandoned. But that discussion is for a different thread. Perhaps we’ve run out of steam on this one.</p>
<p>I am appalled at the reception Ahmadinejad was given. </p>
<p>Why can’t America just for once stand up and be better than these thugs instead of lowering ourselves to their bullying ways? </p>
<p>Shame on Columbia’s president. What the heck. Did he suddenly regret inviting the guy and so decided to trash him? What was his point? To further alienate and strengthen his position? What could he have been thinking? </p>
<p>Honestly. This country is so intent in bullying the rest of the world. And how’s that working out for us anyway???</p>