<p>That was the headline from one of the most liberal newspapers in the country today. The following is one of the excerpts from the article.</p>
<p>"Bollinger clearly had an American audience in mind when he denounced the Iranian leader to his face as a "cruel" and "petty dictator" and described his Holocaust denial as designed to "fool the illiterate and the ignorant." Bollinger's remarks may have taken him off the hook with his domestic critics, but when it came to the international media audience that really counted, Ahmadinejad already had carried the day. The invitation to speak at Columbia already had given him something totalitarian demagogues -- who are as image-conscious as Hollywood stars -- always crave: legitimacy. Bollinger's denunciation was icing on the cake, because the constituency the Iranian leader cares about is scattered across an Islamic world that values hospitality and its courtesies as core social virtues. To that audience, Bollinger looked stunningly ill-mannered; Ahmadinejad dignified and restrained."</p>
<p>i totally agree. as an outsider (raised in china until 14), i am really impressed with ahmadinejad's rhetorical skills (note: not his opinions, which would include "there are no homosexuals in iran"). and that's not comparing him to GW bush, sicne such comparison would be rather meaningless.
i listened to ahmadinejad's speech on youtube. he posed a reasonable stance on why he wanted to encourage holocaust: knowing the validity of it shouldn't stop us from studying the event at all. historians do this for a living. we have historians who try to learn more things about the middle ages, even though such a topic has been in the intellectual society since the renaissance. we still learn new things about the past even though such new fragments are not the comparable to what we already know. history is never fully understood. historians also seek new points of view on certain issues. i believe the branch of cultural history gained attention in the intellectual field only in the past two or three decades. to contend that a topic is completely and clearly understood is to deny humankind reason, knowledge, and rationality. ahmadinejad is right, in the historiographic sense.
the president of columbia's remarks made a fool out of the whole american nation. once again, i feel distantly insulted by american arrogance.</p>
<p>on two side notes:
1. i dont agree with iran's policies and domestic laws (e.g. concerning women and gays).
2. the president's action will probably deter me from going to columbia if i get in.</p>
<p>Seriously tongchen1226, that is an absolutely ridiculous reason to not accept Columbia's offer of admission, if you get it. It's not only petty, it's positively absurd. </p>
<p>Your assertion implies that Bollinger represents the entire institution as a whole- while he does serve as a figurehead, you would be well served to know that many of the students here ardently opposed and were offended by his comments. </p>
<p>Don't apply if you know you're not going to take the spot. There are literally thousands of people who would covet that spot.</p>
<p>on the other hand, Shraf, we wouldn't be here if we didn't feel some sort of obligation to try and promote our alma mater, help people get answers, and generally root for our school. admit it, we've got a little pride wrapped up in whether we can help sell the place, in our own small little way.</p>
<p>Funny story regarding this situation- one of my teachers who was going to do my Columbia rec letter (Early D) told me that she is protesting this whole situation and therefore will not do any rec letters to CU, so I had to find a new teacher.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i listened to ahmadinejad's speech on youtube. he posed a reasonable stance on why he wanted to encourage holocaust: knowing the validity of it shouldn't stop us from studying the event at all. historians do this for a living. we have historians who try to learn more things about the middle ages, even though such a topic has been in the intellectual society since the renaissance. we still learn new things about the past even though such new fragments are not the comparable to what we already know. history is never fully understood. historians also seek new points of view on certain issues.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ever hear of the field of Holocaust Studies? Most major universities in the U.S. already have people who study the history of the Holocaust. It's an existing field among historians. This is what was so insidious about A.'s remarks, aimed at making him sound academic, intellectual, reasonable. No one says the Holocaust is not an appropriate event to study, even a vital event to study. What A. didn't say at Columbia was that the only Holocaust "scholars" he invited to Tehran were those few crackpots who deny that the Holocaust even happened. There is no reputable historian in the world who believes that.</p>
<p>If you listen carefully to what A. said, he did not say he acknowledged the validity of the Holocaust. He simply said that IF it did, in fact, happen, the Palestinians shouldn't pay the price for what Europe did. That's a whole other topic, as is the argument over whether Bollinger should have issued the invitation or made the introduction that he did. But I just couldn't let A.'s "all I'm saying is we should study the Holocaust the way we study physics" statement stand unchallenged.</p>
<p>"Funny story regarding this situation- one of my teachers who was going to do my Columbia rec letter (Early D) told me that she is protesting this whole situation and therefore will not do any rec letters to CU, so I had to find a new teacher."</p>
<p>did you report your teacher to your councellor or principal? i'm not sure such discrimation should be welcomed or even allowed. she's sort of hurting your chances because of an event columbia ran.</p>
<p>maybe she disliked you, and found an amazing excuse to not write you a recommendation?</p>
<p>maybe her overwhelming lack of objectivity wouldn't make for a good recommendation afterall?</p>
<p>I was at the Ahmadinejad speech on the South lawn, and one of my friends's friend (this sounds like a lie, but I promise you it's true!) was inside the Lerner auditorium and she listened to the original speech (she speaks Farsi). </p>
<p>Where the translator said "there are no homosexuals in Iran", my friend's friend claims that he actually said "there is no homosexual identity in Iran", as in, in Iran, homosexuality is not present as an identity as it is here in the USA, which is indeed a legitimate claim. (Most likely because of all the repression.) Anyways, the point of this post is to show another interpretation of his words (one that makes him look less like a denying fool.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Funny story regarding this situation- one of my teachers who was going to do my Columbia rec letter (Early D) told me that she is protesting this whole situation and therefore will not do any rec letters to CU, so I had to find a new teacher.
[/quote]
that's funny. if i were in your position, i would've just said "no problem, just write a generic one that recommends me to 'your institution' and i'll send it to everywhere except Columbia", and then sent it to Columbia anyway.</p>
<p>But I'm machiavellian like that.</p>
<p>edit: and crazyformints, great note. i'm sure he was very confused as to why all those Columbia students were laughing at him.</p>