Comments

1. dnA wrote:

   Bollinger skewered President Ahmedinejad in his introduction for the president. He called him a “petty and cruel dictator,” and implied that he was either a drama queen or an idiot for his statements about Israel.

   Free speech is free speech. It includes both Ahmadinejad and Bollinger, and it’s not restrained by subjective social niceties.

   And given your language, it is actually you who are trivializing Ahmadinejad’s statements regarding Israel and the Holocaust (which you somehow omitted when discussing Bollinger’s statement)

   “Drama Queen” is not the word that comes to mind when I think of Ahmadinejad. What I think about, inevitably, is my Bar-Mitzvah tutor, and the time she told me about seeing her sister murdered in front of her by the Nazis because she was frozen in fear, and could not run. Her sister was six.

   And I wonder to myself what the “debate” over the Holocaust will look like when there are no longer survivors, with first hand accounts to make people like Ahmadinejad look like a fool. Already some people believe him beyond reason.

   I think about how little I’ve cared in the past about the disrespect afforded President Bush at his every international visit. And somehow I find myself unable to care about Ahmadinejad’s feelings, or the minor consequences of a speech that history will forget in a month or two.

   Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 7:37 am ¶

2. NayLah wrote:

   Scuse me but isnt this the same Iranian president that Puppet Bush said “Your government is using resources to fund terrorist. And pursue nuclear weapons.”

   Aren’t we at “war” with President Ahmadinejad’s country or did everyone forget about the $190 Billion President Bullsh*t just asked for to continue funding the “war”?? Oh no wait, Im sorry it is IRAQ we are at war with right?? PuuuLLLeaase!!! I do not feel sorry for Pres. A. either and President Bollinger probably didnt have choice as to whether or not to ALLOW Ahmadinejad to speak.

   I am so tired of this cataract infected viewpoint of Americans who choose not to see or hear the truth. Im personally offended that we would even allow Ahmadinejad to speak – its like broadcasting a tape of one of our so called terrorist funded by the US (Osama) and having him speak about what we Americans need to do to stop the war – Oh wait, he did that already right before 9/11 this year…….

   ~Love the sinner, hate the sin.

   NayLah

   Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 8:16 am ¶

3. Morgan wrote:

   i generally don’t have nice things to say about homophobes and anti-Semites. i understand that the West has abused the Middle East considerably, but that does not excuse what this man has said.

   Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 8:23 am ¶

4. Ambboogie wrote:

   I completely agree with you in the fact that… people want to hold a blood stained banner for free speech… up until you disagree with them or say something dumb.

   I’ll be linkin this to our blog, check us out sometime!

   http://www.ohellnawl.blogspot.com

   Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 9:03 am ¶

5. Roni wrote:

   My initial reaction was that I can understand Lee Bolinger wanting President Amedinejad to speak at the college, but not wanting to look like Columbia endorsed the controversal Iranian leader. However, that was a tactless and insulting way to handle that.

   But really I don’t understand. It’s not a matter of free speech, they don’t have to have him as a guest speaker. He’s not faculty, nor a student, there’s no reason from him to be there unless they theoretically wanted to hear him out. I’m appalled by Amedinejad’s views, but also I can recognize him as a clever politician. If they are so afraid of appearing to endorse him that it was necessary to denounce him publicly, they didn’t need to invite him in the first place. This isn’t some author, or the leader of a special interest group. I don’t think US colleges should be inviting him to speak, because it’s a recipe for disaster. I am at a loss for anything positive to come out of it, if all goes smoothly the students may develop an appreciation of a hostile nation, at worst there could be a riot. To be clear, I think it’s important the students be exposed to his views, but having the actual man there is far more problematic. Still, if they do, as a visiting President, even a despicable one, he deserved more politeness and civility from his hosts.

   Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 9:10 am ¶

6. Wendi Muse wrote:

   i have nothing to say about the president of iran…however, i just wanted to make a comment on the nation/family analogy you presented. maybe i just don’t have my family values in check or something, but if president bush were, say, to make a speech in france and the french hated on him for it, i would be hard-pressed to feel bad or stand up for him throughout the lambasting.

   just because we share the same nationality does not mean that i support him in any way. if anything, my expressing my distaste for him would be better in that situation because it would provide the public with an opportunity to see that people from the US aren’t all the same and don’t blindly support a leader just because he is ours. he doesn’t speak for me.

   BUT i think it’s an assumption that we often hold when it comes to people from other countries, their descendants, and their leaders. i wonder if their “foreign-ness” as iranians (and their children, american born or not) allows americans to assume that they, too, agree with their nation of origin’s leader. it’s a tricky situation because little or no criticism can be taken for support and criticism of any sort from within the community can be taken as an opportunity to go on a let’s hate all iranians free-for-all.

   Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 9:16 am ¶

7. Kaywil wrote:

   I’m just concerned that people have an opinion of Ahmadinejad without actually reading or hearing what he has said. They’re getting their opinion of him from those that already hate him and are relaying back their thoughts about the man. Relying on others’ opinions to form our own could be dangerous (Iraq war!!). It’s like how everyone now has to say “I love my country, but…” in order to criticize Bush and his policies for fear of being seen as unpatriotic. My questions about how knowledgeable everyone is on President A’s policies and opinions doesn’t mean I’ve declared the side I have chosen (or that I need to choose at all). Just like questioning Israel’s treatment of Palestinians doesn’t mean that I’m Anti-Semite (nor should I have to go into my upbringing in the Jewish faith in order to prove my point). Perhaps it is the niceties that some are trying to avoid (for the sake of being loyal to free speech and “the American way”) that will save us from future wars. You can’t fight fire with fire.

   Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 9:36 am ¶

8. Paul wrote:

   I have to wonder if many of these commenters would also justify Stalin’s purges because the Soviets deared Western Imperialism. The Iranian government is a brutal dictatorship pure and simple. To comapre the US to it is knee-jerk anti-Americanism. If the US is as bad or worse than Iran, why aren’t those who speak out excuted and/or imprisoned. Moore, Chomsky, et al. seem to move freely and are allowed to voice their opinions. The same is not true in Iran.

   Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 9:48 am ¶

9. Rob Schmidt wrote:

   Why is Steve Carrell pretending to be a world leader? Oh…never mind.

   Don’t forget that Ahmedinejad said there are no gays in Iran. Right, and Iranian women prefer to be second-class citizens, too. Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.

   Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 9:52 am ¶

10. Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:

    The point of this post is not about whether we agree/like/approve of Ahmedinejad. The question is: what do we think of how Bollinger handled the situation?

    I’m a Columbia alum and I have to say I’m pretty embarrassed by this whole thing.

    To me, it was incredibly rude and just kind of immature.

    If you think he’s a petty and cruel dictator, don’t invite him to speak. If you want to invite him to speak, then hear him out and make it clear you don’t agree with his views, but in a civil way.

    It would be like me inviting David Duke to speak at a New Demographic conference and then complaining that he’s a racist.

    Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 10:06 am ¶

11. Meena wrote:

    I’m saddened at the lack of intellectual discourse on the entire event and content of the speech. Especially considering most people don’t understand the way in which the Iranian government works. But I digress…Bollinger was trying to appease protesters and critics and I think he handled the entire situation poorly (to say the least). And I don’t think this is a freedom of speech issue, I’m sorry but he is the president of a university who should be at least civil to the leader of country that he invited to speak. Bollinger should have disagreed with him but he should have done so in a less immature way.

    Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 10:33 am ¶

12. Omer wrote:

    Some links i’ve found really interesting below.

    Iranian University Chancellors Ask Bollinger 10 Questions
    http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/3755

    No Gay Iranians Says American Queers
    http://www.queerty.com/news/no-gay-iranians-say-american-queers-20070926/

    Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 10:35 am ¶

13. dnA wrote:

    Carmen,

    I’ve never been one to think the truth has to be polite. It better serves the speaker, but if I believed that, I wouldn’t be the belligerent little high yellow man that I am.

    Speaking as a Columbia Student, I was far more embarassed by the widespread protests comparing Mahmoud to Hitler than I was Lee Bollinger’s statements, which while impolite, at least have the virtue of being accurate.

    Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 11:25 am ¶

14. Brad wrote:

    Bollinger has shown what an ass he is. First mistake was inviting this monster in the first place then realizing what a hornets nest he stirred he then goes on to blast him in the most rude way instead of just disagreeing with him. However I’m not sorry Amedinejad got the treatment he got either. Oh well

    Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 11:25 am ¶

15. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    I’m gonna disagree a bit here and say I understand where the majority of the commenters are coming from.

    I read the article -which appeared to me to be heated and passionate – but I think readers on this site are looking for a little more context with this situation, and less of a condemnation of the West.

    Ahmedinejad was treated poorly – but the article also appears to really lay into his detractors without acknowledging why they feel that way. Check out dnA’s response – he revealed a lot of pain stemming from his faith, which explains his relcutance to feel sorry for a person who is widely perceived as contraversial.

    The flip nature of the article does not really show that side of the story – it focuses solely on Ahmedinejad. I think this is why commentors are reacting negatively to the article.

    As a person who only knows as much about Iran as I have read in Persepolis & Reading Lolita in Tehran,the image is very grim. So, its a little difficult for me to see a criticism about how “the West” treats its guests but dismisses the reason why such feelings flare with a simple nursery rhyme. And, as other commentors have mentioned, whenever our President travels, he is subject to the same rude treatment – and justifiably so. I just think the whole “he’s ours, back off” argument doesn’t really hold water. It would be far to easy for America to excuse the actions of the Bush administration using the same logic.

    Perhaps when dealing with issues that are a bit murkier – particularly those dealing with different government systems, ideas of democracy, religion and the existence of a perceived or real theocracy – we put a little more information into the article and less commentary.

    Unfortunately, after reading the piece, I wasn’t thinking “damn, Columbia U sucks!” I thought, “Whoa, bitter much?”

    Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 11:54 am ¶

16. squidfly wrote:

    Bollinger missed an opportunity as did the three Republican front runners failing to show for Tavis Smiley.
    The Pomp and circumstance around free speech stops for most people around Israel and the Palestinians, and to mention them in the same sentence, one is (lazily) labeled an anti-semite
    Gay Americans for the most part are still closeted and oppressed in a majority of the country, go chant “We’re Queer, we’re here” In Tyler Texas or Jena for that matter; one in four-reported – American women serving in the armed forces in Iraq have been sexually assaulted. The US claims the high ground way too much, and becomes indignant when called on it.
    Bollinger was an embarrasment, he was acting as a cheerleader for Hostile action with Iran, instead of engaging in uncomfortable debate about A’s comments. The bitter Irony is that all of the protesters outside Columbia with their Hitler banners (lazy once again), will not be the ones suiting up on desert battlefields of the Middle East, it’ll be the young Black and Latino men and women from around NY and the poor whites from God’s country. The Columbia crowd will be sipping their Latte’s and perusing Sushi menu’s, while debating which Hollywood actor should could play Žižek or Foucault.
    The President of Iran is just a figure head a rep, the person calling the shots is the Supreme Leader. Bollinger was RUDE, he buckled to self interest groups who have an investment in a further escalation of the Middle East crisis. The Global presentation of America is of tolerance and open mindedness. I saw American Hubris and small mindedness on display at Columbia.

    Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 11:56 am ¶

17. summer wrote:

    i agree wholeheartedly with carmen.

    also, i think that bollinger’s actions were disrespectful. regardless of Ahmedinejad’s policies, columbia invited him as a guest. disagree with him respectfully. otherwise, bollinger just looks like an ass and detracts from his argument.

    Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 12:07 pm ¶

18. Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:

    Good points, Latoya. I do, however, take issue with this one thing:

    > And, as other commentors have mentioned, whenever our President travels, he is subject to the same rude treatment – and justifiably so.

    I’m sure Bush is met with protestors when he travels abroad (as Ahmedinejad was here), but I doubt that another country’s institution has invited him to speak and then publicly dissed him in the same way Bollinger did.

    Or maybe there have been incidents like this that I’m just not aware of.

    Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 12:09 pm ¶

19. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    As far as I know, Bush isn’t invited to speak too often…think of the poor translators! (How do you translate a mispronounced word? Do you say what he meant to say? Or maybe he’s just making up a word on the fly?)

    ok, ok, seriously…

    So, I pulled the full text of Bollinger’s speech up on Salon:

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/09/24/bollinger/index.html

    He is very combatative and uses as lot of baiting questions. However, look at the first part of the speech – he is apologizing to people who may be offeneded by his presence there. He is a polarizing figure. While I am not sure if everything he is accused of is true, those are some serious charges.

    And yes, Bollinger could have stated some things in a different way. He started the name calling early in the game. But sometimes you walk into a forum and get set up. It happens. Being invited to speak in a public forum does not guarantee civility. While we should work toward that in general, I’m not suprised that there was an agenda from the outset.

    Bollinger was out of line with the “civilized world” comment and all the implications there in.

    I am not sure who denied Ahmedinejad access to “Ground Zero.” However, if the charges against Ahmedinejad are correct, and he does support “terrorist” organizations, then I believe they were making what appears to be a logical choice.

    [Note: Terrorist is in quotes because the definition of terrorist largely depends on whose side you are on.]

    Ahmadinjad (spelling differs – which way is correct?) also strikes back, saying:

    At the outset I want to complain a bit from the person who read this political statement against me. In Iran tradition requires that when we demand a person to invite to be a speaker we actually respect our students and the professors by allowing them to make their own judgment and we don’t think it’s necessary before this speech is even given to come in with a series of claims…

    (APPLAUSE)

    … and to attempt in a so-called manner to provide vaccination of some sort to our students and our faculty.

    I think the text read by the dear gentleman here, more than addressing me, was an insult to information and the knowledge of the audience here, present here. In a university environment we must allow people to speak their mind, to allow everyone to talk so that the truth is eventually revealed by all.

    His full speech is here:

    http://www.salon.com/news/primary_sources/2007/09/24/ahmadinejad/

    An interesting counter of the American perspective of Ahmadinejad are here:
    http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/26/ahmadinejad/index.html?source=rss&aim=salon

    In the eyes of Muslims, his day at the U.N. served to show him as a world leader of great importance, and audiences watching throughout the Middle East undoubtedly noticed not only that the television cameras turning on him frequently as President Bush spoke, but that he politely sat and listened to Bush’s speech at all. In contrast, worldwide telecasts showed the U.S. delegation rising and walking out en masse, as they customarily do whenever an Iranian president takes to the lectern. Diplomacy, which is fundamentally about reciprocity, often means that if one party snubs another, the other responds in kind — but Ahmadinejad’s tactical refusal to play by those rules and to instead show respect to the leader of the U.S., begged the question, “Who’s the unreasonable man?”

    Plus student reactions:

    http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/25/ahmadinejad/index.html

    And for the record – the AP has chosen to refute his statements, point by point:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401449.html?tid=informbox

    [Side note: Thanks, Fatemeh, for bringing this to my attention. I doubt I would have taken the time to read all the transcripts if this piece wasn't posted...]

    Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 1:34 pm ¶

20. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    *sorry for the typos, I really should be working…*

    Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 1:36 pm ¶

21. NayLah wrote:

    LOL to LaToya!!

    Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 2:17 pm ¶

22. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    Bush stage-manages his personal appearances by excluding Democrats or anyone who looks like a protester. Which means Ahmedinejad got subjected to more scorn than Bush usually does. That’s funny considering how we tout ourselves as the model of democracy.

    Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 6:00 pm ¶

23. Luke Pharma wrote:

    Slightly different tack but sticking to core point: we (the US) got played (again) and good.

    The only media pundit I feel who got it right this week: Jon Friedman at Markwatch:

    http://tinyurl.com/ywoptf

    While normally getting under my skin, he’s spot on here, pointing out the most basic constant and current virtually lost among the vitriol this week (also underscored by the more heated responses here).

    We all gave President A. what he wanted without making ourselves look too good, focusing so much on touting our principles that we choked on them.

    Notice how little Pres. A actually said and did of *substance* and *coherence* while here, compared to the firestorm from the perception applied towards him. From the moment he arrived, he positioned himself as a defender of his country brave enough to venture here and take everything that would be hurled.

    He offered little to commentators and detractors except the nod and grin, compared to the flaming ranter they were expecting (and by extension associate with the Near/Middle East).

    What he provided was, book and verse , as polished as any celebrity or politician I’ve seen with a twist. If you didn’t like his answers, he just shrugged with a “how funny and culturally backwards this seems to you” attitude.

    Columbia’s president sets you up for a brutal man, you meet a “third world leader” who gets beat up for everything he says. Ponder what comes next: “they attack me, they attack you” linkage…

    That he’d need to get away from his home turf, to stir up such a firestorm in order to shore up support back home– by absorbing the worst insults and accusations (no matter how true), gives him ammunition for masses back home, pandering to the worst sterotypes.

    By choosing not to ignore his trap, however, and giving his visit the low-key treatment, media & pols gave him what he wanted (and knew he’d get).

    And yes Carmen– as Friedman also points out, it is a time honored PR tactic for shrewd savvy politicians everywhere. (CF Hugo Chavez visit and Bush *sigh*)

    Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 8:28 pm ¶

24. Mike wrote:

    I agree with Carmen, Bollinger conduct is the bigger issue here, who did’nt know what Ahmedinejad was about? And why act surprise and offended? That said in terms of education it was that great that Columbia gave an up close forum for Ahmedinejad, isolating world leaders like only strengthens there cause in the eyes of there people.

    Posted 29 Sep 2007 at 2:37 am ¶

25. AssamTea wrote:

    I would just like to point out that the Supreme Leader, not the President, is the head of the Iranian government. In fact, the president has no control over Iranian foreign relations and from what I understand, was only elected to handle the economy.

    His ravings are part of an act. He gets off by fooling the rest of the world into believing he is a super-powerful leader when most of his influence is limited to domestic affairs. That does not mean that the Supreme Leader and others in the Iranian government do not share similar beliefs or opinions about the West and the Holocaust, but Ahmedinejad is only speaking for himself. And his speeches have made him an unpopular president in Iran and it is unlikely that he will serve another term.

    Columbia invited Ahmedinejad to speak on behalf of Iran, on matters that do not (directly) concern him and in doing so, encouraged him to continue his act. It’s not the same as inviting President Bush to speak on behalf the US because Bush actually makes decisions concerning his country’s international affairs.

    A helpful website: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/middle_east/iran/structure.html

    Posted 29 Sep 2007 at 2:50 am ¶

26. AssamTea wrote:

    Sorry, forgot to post this.

    A couple of days ago, the News Hour with Jim Lehrer (PBS) had a great discussion with Gary Sick (Middle-East Institute at Columbia) and Karim Sadjapour (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) on this topic. You can listen to the broadcast, watch it, or read the transcript at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec07/iran_09-25.html

    Posted 29 Sep 2007 at 2:57 am ¶

27. Morgan wrote:

    i’m sure that this has been pointed out before, but the anti-Semitic issue is not merely a knee-jerk pro-Israel “lazy” taunt. one can agree that the Israeli occupation of Palestine is oppressive and wrong and not be anti-Semitic ( I am Jewish and I feel that way), but it is impossible to deny the Holocaust and not be anti-Semitic. the Israeli Army and it’s atrocities do not represent all Jewish people, and should not justify anti- Jewish sentiment.

    i understand the point of the post was to attack Bollinger’s behavior and not to defend
    Ahmedinejad. however, if we are to determine the lesser of two evils here, i can’t fathom why a tacky publicity choice could be compared to what is happening in Iran.

    Posted 29 Sep 2007 at 2:18 pm ¶

28. Colin wrote:

    No comparisons were made between the two, Morgan. Not by Fatemeh. It is possible, as I hope you can see, to oppose both Iran’s nuclear ambitions and poor human rights record, as well as oppose absolutely stupid political stunts by embarassed university presidents to try to depants the head of gov’t in Iran.

    I agree with Fatemeh on this: If Iran hears nothing but good about us, and this story is even a quarter as big there as it was here, this cannot do the US, Iran, really anyone but Ayatollah Khamenei and his coterie any good as Bush and Ahmedinejad seem intent on marching our nations headlong into war.

    I mean, WHAT could Pres. Bollinger have hoped to accomplish that sanctions, international condemnations and worldwide negative press cannot? Make lil’ Mahmoud cry a bit? Make him take his ball and go home? There’s little logic excepting of course, as I said, a short-sighted tactic to try to win the press here in the good ole’ US of A after he took a beating from left, right and I’ll bet even batshit crazy land for even inviting Pres. Ahmedinejad in the first place.

    It worked over the weak and often just idiotic domestic press, and only to some extent, but it has not made the situation between our nations any better, there’s little evidence we learned anything except Bollinger’s not Secy. of State material, and it’s been a BIG diversion from the bigger story, the UN speeches by both men, and the relationship between our two nations.

    It gave Pres. Bush a chance to sit back and watch someone else get hit politically over Iran for a change! That should be reason enough to call Bollinger a moron.

    Posted 29 Sep 2007 at 9:21 pm ¶

29. Colin wrote:

    “the UN speeches by both men” actually referred to Pres. Bush and Pres. Ahmedinejad.

    Posted 29 Sep 2007 at 10:17 pm ¶