<p>Of course the overwhelming number of profs at most colleges are liberals and Democrats. They are intelligent after all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And almost totally isolated from most of the issues of the real world. They don’t call it an ivory tower for nothing.</p>
<p>Makes a great combination.</p>
<p>To Weenie and others who are so “appalled at the reception Ahmadenijad was given”:</p>
<p>The man accepted the invitation with clearly stated parameters placed upon his appearance. This from Bolinger’s pre-appearance statement:</p>
<p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Bollinger did exactly what he said he would do, and what Ahmadenijad knew he would do before he came to Columbia to speak.</p>
<p>Thanks for supplying that, CMM. That’s an important point that’s being ignored.</p>
<p>Insults do not equal challenges.</p>
<p>If those were the ground rules, then I think Columbia’s president is even dumber than I thought. For one thing, did he think that would get even coverage in the middle east? It didn’t even get coverage here! Why do we give them fodder, allowing them to show (over and over no doubt) Bolinger “dissing” the Iranian Pres at an event he was invited to? Oh, why don’t we just shut up and listen for a change?</p>
<hr>
<p>Razorsharp: I’m still wondering why you think this is nutty? “U.S. flags are the emblem of the invading war machine in Iraq today. They are the emblem of the occupying power. The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military.” Have you EVER stopped to look at it from the Iraqi perspective? BTW - We ARE the invading war machine!</p>
<p>
You are telling me that you need to have the problem with this statement explained to you? You have got to be kidding.</p>
<p>The U.S. Military consists of Americans who act based on the orders of the elected U.S. officials. Their job is to do what our civilian leaders tell them to do. The way you defeat a military is to kill as many of its members as you can. The bonehead professor thinks he is an American and is suggesting the best thing to have happen is for his fellow Americans to be killed. If you can’t figure out what the problem is with that nutty professor’s position is, shame on you. Try and be a patriot. It won’t hurt you.</p>
<p>BTW, if the professor opposes the war, he is free to say remove the elected leaders; but to suggest our military be defeated is simply un-American. He should be condemned.</p>
<p>re post #78; “Columbia is not the place to go and broaden your intellectual horizons…”</p>
<p>Again I say, 'What rot!! As Sac said, I don’t understand why someone would offer such a statement for reasoned discussion in this forum. And no, I haven’t seen the film that was referenced. I did read some time ago that much of the confrontation occuring in the Arab professor’s classroom was intentional on the part of his detractors. And wasn’t he cleared of allegations of any agregious lapse in academic fairness? I also listened myself to [broadcast interview] comments from one of the students in his class. I’m a fair guy, but she didn’t convince me that there was merit in her complaints.</p>
<p>Churchmusic mom and Garland: I believe that the fact A. accepted the invitation knowing Bollinger would attempt to bring up those points shows how valuable he thought the Columbia forum would be for him, and his confidence that he could use it for his own purposes. I don’t think he was expecting Bollinger’s personal insults, but he has managed to use that for his purposes as well. Good analysis, I think, from NPR on how the whole NY reaction may have bolstered A. in his own country:<a href=“http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14703073[/url]”>Criticism of Ahmadinejad May Help Him at Home : NPR;
<p>I believe that Bollinger was caught up in his own parochial purposes, and yes his own ego as constitutional scholar and world actor. It’s not particularly unexpected that his attack on A. has been dismissed as Zionist propaganda, and Bollinger as representing a university that is in the control of Zionist Jews. (Funny, exactly the opposite of what the Columbia Unbecoming crowd claims. According to them, Columbia is in the hands of rabid anti-Semites.) What makes this of such great concern is that Iran is not just any old repressive country, but one that our own politicians may be on the verge of taking us to war with, and Bollinger’s statements sound to me very much like some of the language used to build a larger-than-life monster before we invaded Iraq. I think that before the president of a university steps onto the world stage – not just the academic one – he should consider the consequences and think it through a bit more. He crossed some strong cultural trip-wires in ways that I think were counterproductive and also entirely predictable. If he felt he had to issue this invitation, why didn’t he let someone who is an expert in the region do the introduction and pose some of these accusations as questions backed up by fact?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And, who is the nutjob here? 
</p>
<p>And anyway, you don’t find it alarming that Congress would attempt to strong arm a university into firing a dissenter? Are you familiar with Naomi Wolf’s new book, The End of America? Step #7 in forming a fascist regime:
</p>
<p>Sac, you raise some good points. i’ll have to think about this some more.</p>
<p>sac:
</p>
<p>Reminds me of “Bring it on.” Idiots, all of them. Playing with (other) people’s lives so carelessly.</p>
<p>At least everyone is in agreement about one thing: Bollinger has dug himself into a hole as deep as he possibly could and now is blamed from both ends (albeit for different reasons). Without any doubts, hes got what he asked for and he deserves the consequences, which I hope will hunt him for a long time. Unfortunately, he is not the only victim of his thoughtless and arrogant act; with the help from the audience, he has let all of us down.</p>
<p>[Despite</a> all this, most of Ahmadinejad’s non-responsive - or blatantly disingenuous - answers were met with silence from the audience.
When it wasn’t applauding him, anyway.
No kidding: When, for example, the Iranian thug chided Columbia President Lee Bollinger for insulting him - after having invited him to speak - students and faculty cheered for Ahmadinejad.](<a href=“LESSON IN ABSURDITY”>LESSON IN ABSURDITY)</p>
<p>There is no lack of good posts and articles about this unfortunate event and I wont get into a worthless discussion regarding what was the academic value of the event, what news and ideas have we gained from Ahmadinejad’s speech, who was the winner of this so called debate and who benefited from an ensuing publicity around the world</p>
<p>There is a much broader, fundamental and troubling issue: why giving the benefit of the doubt, engaging into a discussion, granting civil rights and freedoms to someone who through his words and action denies the very idea of civility, liberty and human rights, to someone who [could</a> be arrested for a host of terrorist and criminal activities if was not protected by diplomatic immunity](<a href=“http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/ahmadinejad_1_bollinger_0.html]could”>RealClearPolitics - Articles - Bollinger Forgot to Stand Up for the U.S.)</p>
<p>As long as terrorists and their supporters are regarded as our partners in any civil intercourse, this event will repeat itself. And give me a break with Bush is worse rhetoric. This has already been sufficiently addressed [over</a> here](<a href=“http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/ahmadinejad_and_the_suicidal_l.html]over”>RealClearPolitics - Articles - Ahmadinejad and the Suicidal Left)
</p>
<p>
Yes, because he tried to have it both ways.</p>
<p>
I don’t agree with this characterization of the event, from what I’ve read and heard. I do believe that however Columbia students responded, someone would have blamed them. They would have been portrayed as thugs if they booed and drowned A. out, as you well know. And they were warned from the outset by security and university officials that there would be consequences if people got out of hand. From what I understand, students wrote down a lot of questions that they did not get a chance to ask because time ran out. If they’d shouted them out, they would probably have been removed from the hall.</p>
<p>sac - there is nothing wrong with being a Democrat except if those are the only opinions you ever hear then you are bound to have a tin ear for broader public opinion. Fact is Bollinger was surprised as all get out at the reaction the invite aroused. Doubtless he heard from alumni and benefactors and felt stuck with his decision and began looking for a way out. </p>
<p>Bollinger is the guy who went to the Supreme Court arguing he couldn’t train lawyers unless he had people with different color skins in the classroom and this diversity of skin tone was so necessary to the educational process that it should excuse discrimination on the basis of race. Maybe he was right, maybe wrong. Either way the Supreme Court bought his arguement and he became a great hero of the Left.</p>
<p>His critics argued that the diversity that really mattered in education was diversity of opinion and point of view. That is the diversity most missing from the Ivory Tower. Maybe if there had been a little on Columbia’s campus we would have been spared this debacle because you are correct in your assertion that in the end this strengthened both MA and W.</p>
<p>“Of course the overwhelming number of profs at most colleges are liberals and Democrats. They are intelligent after all.”</p>
<p>Yeah very intelligent. That’s why they can get hornswoggle by some sawed off semi-literate little carpet kissing camel jockey like MA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is probably true, but they have no one to blame but themselves. It was obvious that they were invited to participate in farce and mockery. Whether they liked it or not, but before deciding to attend this event, they had to consider that thereby they would accept an obligation to represent American public. If they feel mature enough to challenge Ahmadinejad, they also must be mature enough to take responsibility. After all, they could have joined the protestors instead. (Actually, I really hope that some of them did).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is really nice. Just curious, is this a generic policy at Columbia University? How long ago has it been instituted? Is it applied towards all invited speakers, or just towards the leaders of terrorist States? I think we all know about several recent “get-out-of-hand” incidents at Columbia. Please, excuse my resentment; it’s not directed at you or the students, but rather at Columbia administrators: what cowards are they!</p>
<p>Not hypocritical at all. The university student activities people underestimated the need for security when the College Republicans invited a provocative speaker last year, and then disciplined the few students who did something stupid in protest. Not only did the administration learn from that, but this week’s was a completely different type of event – held by the university itself, involving a controversial world leader, and with a ton of security that was not just from the university. A. even had some of his own on stage.</p>
<p>And, yes, I hear there were plenty of students who expressed their disapproval outside and there were some in the hall wearing shirts with messages that protested. There was a lot of debate about whether it was more effective to attend the event and ask tough questions, or to not attend the event to show disapproval. Thousands watched a screen set up on the lawn outside and then discussed it afterwords at a microphone set up so students could speak.</p>
<p>Why do people paint a whole student body, and a whole university, with the same brush? There are more students at Columbia heading to work for hedge funds than heading off to join the peace corps. Too bad, in my opinion. At least Columbia didn’t give one of its undergraduate slots to a former spokesman for the Taliban. As I recall that was Yale. But we all know what a hotbed of left-wing loonies Yale is.</p>
<p>Hey Garland, come on back. I’m done dissing Bollinger for his stupidity now. I need some help defending Columbia students.:)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Am I missing something here? Didn’t you turn around and “paint” those folks with a big old brush yourself??</p>
<p>Kind of made me smile. :)</p>
<p>Also, just FYI to all : according to an article in the Spec, most of the pro-Ahmadinejad appplause came from the section of his invited “guests” in the audience. I have only even read that he HAD a section of his own invited “guests” in that first-hand, student-written article…</p>
<p>And, BTM writes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nope. Everyone is not in agreement on this.</p>
<p>I have met students from Columbia from all over the political spectrum. As Sac says, there probably are more who end up at hedge funds than the peace corps, but there are also others at every possible permutation in between (like all colleges.)</p>
<p>And no matter what I might think of their politics, I have found the students I have talked to to be engaged, curious thinkers–else why go to a school based on one of the most rigorous Core Curriculums (of mostly Western thought) of any college campus in America?</p>
<p>They get accused of being leftwing radicals and preprofessional drones. The college apparently panders to the Jewish Community, or alternately is rampantly anti-Semitic. You know, I think a place that can tick off observers (especially those who’ve never been there) from all different viewpoints, must be doing something right. And i like the fact that the school so actively and openly engages with the greater world, even if sometimes unevenly. Better to make the effort, and take some risks–even with a stumble, learning is more likely to take place this way.</p>