Is Columbia University's Invitation to Ahmadinejad Out of Line?

<p>The problem is quite simple. For Ahmadinejad to have had the right to speak at such a forum, it should have been in the form somewhat of a debate. At least that of a Q&A by the audience. Instead, the free speech advocates and those claiming it was all about education, allowed Ahmadinejad instead to have an open forum to say whatever he wanted to. Bollinger decided, because this was not going to become a debate or Q&A, would allogate the thoughts and concerns of many Americans; thus allowing Ahmadinejad to respond to these perceptions by many Americans.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, the same people who pushed for Ahmadinejad to have freedom of speech by speaking at Columbia is questioning Bollinger’s right to have the same right. Because some don’t think what he said was “Nice” or “Polite” or “Politically Correct” then he shouldn’t be allowed to say what he did. Sorry, but freedom of speech doesn’t apply only if you like what is being said.</p>

<p>After reading all these posts, newspapers, tv, etc… on this topic, I believe that Ahmadinejad knew exactly what the concerns of Americans were. He knew he was going to be accused and therefore would have to respond. Respect is not “Given”, it is earned. Ahmadinejad does not automatically deserve respect from anyone here. The whole purpose of his being allowed to speak at Columbia was for him to gain respect from the American people on his positions by how he presented it. He didn’t gain much respect. Many countries have certain opinions about them by others around the world. It is up to the leaders and spokesman and spokeswoman to gain the respect of the people of other nations. It’s up to Bush to gain respect when he speaks to people. Here and abroad. It isn’t automatically given. Same with Ahmadinejad. </p>

<p>Ahmadinejad was not disrespected as an individual. It was his “Country’s” positions that were being questioned. Plus, I will fight for the right of Bollinger or ANY other American, even if I don’t agree with what they say, before I would ever defend the rights of a foreign visitor or illegal immigrant. In my opinion, those people can leave if they don’t think they are being treated fairly.</p>

<p>Well said, Garland.</p>

<p>Sac, please, read my posts again and tell me which of my comments were directed towards the entire student body. I was talking specifically about the students who attended the event. In fact, on the contrary, I hoped that some Columbia students have joined the protestors. I am well aware about the College Republicans, as well as about the students heading off to work in finance, although I don’t understand what’s so upsetting about it. Perhaps if the university did a better job at promoting their proclaimed values, instead of constantly embarrassing its students and faculties, then more graduates would choose to join the peace corps instead – a very telling example in my opinion. I understand that as a Columbia parent you feel obliged to defend the students (not that they needed to be defended), but you must agree that debate attendees have nothing to be proud about, unless I’ve missed some essential information. Imagine for a second what it would be like if the room was empty - THAT would make a statement. </p>

<p>

Not at all, he does not give a #%#$ about opinion of the Americans. He understands very well that no words would ever possibly gain him any respect as long as they continue to contradict with his deeds (and everyone knows how cheap his words are anyways). His goal was to spin the propaganda machine and to boost his status in his own region and in other countries enjoying the show. He had absolutely nothing to loose and lots to gain from this appearance, a win-win situation (courtesy of Bollinger and Co.)</p>

<p>I think Ahmadinejad is a dangerous whackjob, but he WAS an invited speaker to the campus.</p>

<p>Bollinger was out of line, IMO. He invited the guy, which may or may not have been a good idea. But I think it is a poor way to treat a guest, and that is no matter how crazy I think MA is. It has nothing to do with “freedom of speech” on Bollinger’s part, but on decency and good manners.</p>

<p>And that isn’t a partisan argument in the slightest.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Regrading a subject of free speech, I think that Ed Koch has done a pretty good job addressing it: <a href=“http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/ahmadinejad_1_bollinger_0.html[/url]”>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/ahmadinejad_1_bollinger_0.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

</p>

<p>Free speech Amendement can be tossed and twisted in so many different ways, people used it to justify hate and racist speech, burning American flags, street dancing on the night of 9/11 and now giving a platform to a terrorist… This forum is not a proper place to expand upon this, but in this particular case I agree that the issue of free speech simply does not apply (and this is also not a partisan argument)</p>

<p>Allmusic
Bollinger issued this “invitation” stating as he did so that he WAS GOING TO DO/SAY JUST WHAT HE DID.</p>

<p>Please excuse the all-caps cyber shout but I am getting weary of people saying Bollinger was treating a “guest” poorly. He said clearly beforehand that MA was invited to speak and could do so only with the understanding that he (Bollinger) would introduce him pretty much exactly as he did. </p>

<p>And for students’ perspective on the event, go to the Spectator online and find their link to pictures and interviews. I know my d (who is not a world-events person) did not know anything about Ahmadinejad before he came to Columbia. She was truly “engaged” by the event and she is not alone in that regard. A good thing, IMO.</p>

<p>Another Columbia parent chiming in:
As part of the “Columbia experience”, this was a very exciting and educational time for my sophomore daughter. Not only did she get to experience the event herself, but she was asked by her former high school world history teacher to send her impressions of the speech, protests, media reaction, etc. This, in turn, formed the basis for a very spirited and passionate discussion at her former high school. Columbia’s reputation as a school for passionate discourse/learning/engagement in the world at large was futher enhanced by this event, at least at this one particular high school in the deep south.
So, was this a good thing for my daughter and her educational experience at Columbia? A resounding yes, as it apparently also was for churchmusicmom’s Barnard daughter. As to how it plays out in world politics, I agree with Sac and suspect that President Bollinger did nothing but further aggravate tensions in that part of the world. As an educator, however, (which is what he is, not a foreign diplomat or world leader) I give Bollinger an A+ for sponsoring an event that so engaged the student body.</p>

<p>"I am appalled at the reception Ahmadinejad was given. "</p>

<p>Because of his introduction or something else? I can tell you from being here that he’s received a much warmer reception from protesters and others in the City than the republicans did with their convention. Heck, traffic hasn’t even been that bad this week. I sincerely don’t think he was bullied and, no, I don’t have a problem with him being here.</p>

<p>You used the work engage(ment) and others, but those are just words. From what I have read and seen, there was NO “Engagement”. I didn’t see students questioning Ahmadinejad on his country’s positions on anything he said or is being accused of. I didn’t see any debate back and forth. There was no engagement.</p>

<p>What I saw was a university official who knew that there wasn’t going to be any “Real” engagement. Therefor, he decided to present Ahmadinejad with the thoughts and accusations that many of the citizens of this and other countries have about Iran. In turn, he was hoping that Ahmadinejad would address these topics in a way that would educate the students and other receivers on Iran’s position and allow him to address this. Of course Ahmadinejad spun the answers the way that was expected. But if Ahmadinejad knew what he was getting into; knew the ground rules; knew these accusations and perceptions were going to be brought up, then all is fair and Bollinger didn’t do anything wrong.</p>

<p>Ahmadinejad doesn’t automatically deserve respect when such alligations exist. He deserves the opportunity to defend or explain and dismiss these alligations, but not an automatic respect to not confront him.</p>

<p>I think it was good that he spoke at the University. It would have been even better if the students could have truly “Engaged” in a dialog or debate. It would have been better if Ahmadinejad had something worth listening to. I’ve only seen partial transcripts, but he definitely didn’t improve my opinion of his or his government.</p>

<p>Great to see more Columbia parents on the thread.</p>

<p>btm – Yes, I did get defensive on behalf of the students. I probably should have distinguished between responding to the tone of some of the earlier posters and responding to your description of the students listening politely to A. with the implication they did something wrong. Anyway, irony is not a tone that works well online, and I shouldn’t try it. Same with the hedge fund comment.</p>

<p>There is a wide variety of reaction on campus to the events and today’s Spectator reflects it. (One thing I learned was that, at least according to the Spec, there weren’t that many students in the audience. I don’t know if they mean just undergrads or not.) I don’t know anything about this student, but I thought this one was particularly well argued and worth reading:<a href=“Homepage - Columbia Daily Spectator”>Homepage - Columbia Daily Spectator; </p>

<p>I think it demonstrates better than I did one of the points I was attempting to make: at least some of the audience felt blindsided by the discrepancy between how the event was set up and Bollinger’s introduction – and that might account for some the audience reaction that followed.</p>

<p>Christcorp – There was a q and a, and there were challenging questions. A. simply managed to deliver evasive answers. I think that was predictable.</p>

<p>And, from AP :

…</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Sac, but, precisely, this information resonates with my sentiments about hypocrisy of Columbia administration towards the students. If Bollinger pretends to be their Godfather and educator, then he shouldn’t have put them into this controversial situation. If I was a Columbia parent, I would be extremely disappointed about it. And, quite frankly, I am puzzled by the assertions of several parents about educational value of this debate. Forgive my ignorance, but where exactly is the value? </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This is like praising a movie star for her fabulous performance while giving a fundraising speech, but admitting that the raised funds will be spend on filming a porno movie for donors’ kids. Perhaps, not the best analogy, but you get an idea. How can you separate educational process from its impact on the surrounding world? Isn’t an educator supposed to lead by example? This was not a literature or history class, for God’s sake; he tried promoting political activism.</p>

<p>And regarding post #111: as I said, a win-win situation for A.</p>

<p>btm
With all due respect, I don’t “get the idea” from your analogy at all. I suggest we simply agree to disagree about the issue.
My daughter is happy at Columbia, and my husband and I are happy with the education she’s receiving at Columbia. She has no set political agenda, but hears all sides of an issue, and then makes her own decisions on matters. Her opinions are not set in stone, but change with new knowledge, interactions with people whose opinions may differ, and the wisdom that hopefully comes from experience and age. No matter what school they attend, I believe that’s what we all want for our children.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>We can definitely agree upon that :slight_smile: Sorry that I could not communicate my point more effectively, but since you are happy with the education your D is receiving at Columbia (including recent events), this probably does not matter. I guess, we just see the roles of educators differently.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I know this thread is too long for scrolling back, but this is exactly where I started out, by saying that I didn’t believe Bollinger acted in the interests of Columbia starting with the invitation. I don’t think his motivations had much to do with educating students. I feel his agenda was personal, and as the president of the university, he should have given much more thought to the impact on the institution he leads.</p>

<p>That said, I do think the event provoked a lot of thought among students, which is the goal of education. And I completely understand the thrill, especially for undergrads, of feeling you are part of something historical and important. </p>

<p>I also think our S has gotten an excellent education at Columbia, in the classroom and outside it.</p>

<p>I think Ahmadinejad would have looked like a fool without Bollinger’s prodding. Bollinger blew it on the British boycott issue (as the Pres of Williams well pointed out), and I think he did his institution a disservice with his remarks here. And I am sure that Iranians both here and abroad picked up on it. I think he acted in the best interests of Columbia in inviting him, and then other interests prevailed. </p>

<p>By the way, Iran has a horrible, horrible policy on gay issues. BUT, and he repeated the remark twice, Ahmadinejad did NOT say that Iran has no gay people. He said (in Farsi, of course, but his translator was very precise), “We have no gay people LIKE YOU DO HERE.” And he is factually correct - there is no open gay culture in Iran, like there is here. Not a good commentary (in my judgment, even if it is the world in which Newt Gingrich would like to live as he deserts sick wives for new squeezes, though it would be less healthy for Larry Craig.)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Thank you mini, for clarifying this! I didn’t realize that that was his precise meaning. I believe the majority of Americans believed MA was speaking as a whole-- that there were no homosexuals whatsoever in Iran. </p>

<p>Another part of the Bollinger speech/rant that stuck out ot me was his reference to MA’s statement of “wiping Israel off the map.” From what I know, that’s actually a mistranslation. MA doesn’t mean any particular good will to Israel, but he did not actually say that he wanted to “wipe” them off the map. </p>

<p>That Bollinger cited this quote bothered me. Surely he knows that it wasn’t accurately interpreted in American media? </p>

<p>It makes me wonder how much of MA’s crazy quotes are actually misquotes lost in translation.</p>

<p>Actually, the translator translated it correctly. It was lost in the selective hearing of the American audience.</p>

<p>"I read again in this morning’s Boston Globe a matter of fact reference to Iran’s threat to “wipe Israel off the map.” This echoes the repeated allegation by President Bush and other top administration officials that Iran’s President Ahmadinejad has issued such a call. “We are talking about a specific threat on a partner of the U.S. and Germany,” Bush told the German newspaper Bild last week. But is this not just more neo-con disinformation, designed to inspire fear that Iran’s nuclear program, which heads the long list of Washington’s charges against Iran, is really designed to annihilate Israel? </p>

<p>It turns out that Ahmadinejad never said what is being routinely attributed to him. Juan Cole, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at University of Michigan who reads Persian, explains that he actually stated (quoting the late Ayatollah Khomeini): “The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).” </p>

<p>Now, some might say, “So he didn’t say, ‘wipe off the map,’ he said ‘erase from the page.’ What’s the difference? Anyway he’s saying he wants to get rid of Israel.” But Cole explains why the mistranslation significantly distorts the Iranian leader’s words. “Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope – that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah’s government. Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that ‘Israel must be wiped off the map’ with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time.” </p>

<p>How would it sound if Bush kept repeating: “The Iranian president has quoted Ayatollah Khomeini, who died seventeen years ago, as saying ‘the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time?’” Pretty lame, huh? Or if he were to say, “In ten years, Iran might be able to build a nuclear weapon to use against Israel, which itself has had a couple hundred nukes for quite awhile?” Pretty lame, too. You can be sure that employees in the current incarnation of the Office of Special Plans aren’t being paid to churn out that kind of stuff. They’re paid to produce effective propaganda to justify the planned attack on Iran. </p>

<p>“This is how we’ll spin it,” some wise neo-con must have suggested as soon as the Iranian leader made his statement. “We’ll say Ahmadinejad has stated publicly that he wants to wipe Israel off the map, and since we know that Iran is trying to produce nuclear weapons, clearly Iran plans to nuke Israel at the earliest opportunity. People will say, ‘That’s crazy, Israel would respond to an attack by destroying Iran.’ But we’ll say, ‘Ahmadinejad is indeed crazy. And he’s as bad as Hitler!’” </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.albionmonitor.com/0605a/iranmisquote.html[/url]”>http://www.albionmonitor.com/0605a/iranmisquote.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>You can be sure Bollinger never consulted with his own faculty. I can’t understand why a supposed scholar would choose to rely on third hand press accounts. (He seems to have done the same with the so-called Israel boycott issue.) Doesn’t anyone at Columbia at least screen his information for him (or is he simply the tool of his fundraising arm?)</p>

<p>"So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Farsi:</p>

<p>“Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.” </p>

<p>That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word “regime.” pronounced just like the English word with an extra “eh” sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase “rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods” (regime occupying Jerusalem).</p>

<p>So this raises the question… what exactly did he want “wiped from the map”? The answer is: nothing. That’s because the word “map” was never used. The Persian word for map, “nagsheh” is not contained anywhere in his original Farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase “wipe out” ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran’s president threatened to “wipe Israel off the map.” despite never having uttered the words “map.” “wipe out” or even “Israel.”</p>

<p>The Proof:</p>

<p>The full quote translated directly to English:</p>

<p>“The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.”</p>

<p>Word by word translation:</p>

<p>Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from). </p>

<p>Here is the full transcript of the speech in Farsi, archived on Ahmadinejad’s web site</p>

<p>The Speech and Context:</p>

<p>While the false “wiped off the map” extract has been repeated infinitely without verification, Ahmadinejad’s actual speech itself has been almost entirely ignored. Given the importance placed on the “map” comment, it would be sensible to present his words in their full context to get a fuller understanding of his position. In fact, by looking at the entire speech, there is a clear, logical trajectory leading up to his call for a “world without Zionism.” One may disagree with his reasoning, but critical appraisals are infeasible without first knowing what that reasoning is.</p>

<p>In his speech, Ahmadinejad declares that Zionism is the West’s apparatus of political oppression against Muslims. He says the “Zionist regime” was imposed on the Islamic world as a strategic bridgehead to ensure domination of the region and its assets. Palestine, he insists, is the frontline of the Islamic world’s struggle with American hegemony, and its fate will have repercussions for the entire Middle East.</p>

<p>Ahmadinejad acknowledges that the removal of America’s powerful grip on the region via the Zionists may seem unimaginable to some, but reminds the audience that, as Khomeini predicted, other seemingly invincible empires have disappeared and now only exist in history books. He then proceeds to list three such regimes that have collapsed, crumbled or vanished, all within the last 30 years:</p>

<p>(1) The Shah of Iran – the U.S. installed monarch</p>

<p>(2) The Soviet Union</p>

<p>(3) Iran’s former arch-enemy, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein</p>

<p>In the first and third examples, Ahmadinejad prefaces their mention with Khomeini’s own words foretelling that individual regime’s demise. He concludes by referring to Khomeini’s unfulfilled wish: “The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time. This statement is very wise.” This is the passage that has been isolated, twisted and distorted so famously. By measure of comparison, Ahmadinejad would seem to be calling for regime change, not war."</p>

<p>Boys will be boys and Columbia will be Columbia (no disrespect to girl Columbians, did not mean it that way.) </p>

<p>Columbia has been at the center of ferment since the late sixties, just a little behind Berkeley and the free speech movement. Having the UN closeby (okay, the Upper West Side not so close to UN) adds heady ingredients to the brew. And think Ernesto Cardenale, Nicaraguan Culture honcho and great poet, Allen Ginsberg, Kerouac. This is part of Columbia’s mission whether Bollinger blew it or not. And this IS why a lot of kids choose to attend. </p>

<p>D is taking colloquium on Constitutional Civil Liberties from poli-sci dept. and has taken many Human Rights classes at C. (one of her majors.) Events like this, in the real world, not off the pages of a book, are invaluable learning experiences.</p>

<p>D has often said she feels like she’s at the center of the world. Now forgiving her her youthful hyperbolic utterance (and youthful conceit) all her Human Rights classes also have had controversial speakers, though none so high profile.</p>

<p>So far of all her friends, only the ultra-Zionist have opposed the appearance, but the dialogue at Columbia and Barnard has been rich and prolonged. A good thing in my opinion, too.</p>