<p>Kind of an "up yours" to Lee B.?</p>
<p>^funny the article is dated before the speech. btw Columbia2002, if you haven't already seen bollinger's speech google it and watch it, it lasts 15 minutes, definitely worth it. I wonder if anyone still believes columbia was condoning his views by letting him speak.</p>
<p>CNN: "Lee Bollinger excoriated Iran's leader, Monday"
MSNBC: "The strident and personal nature of his attack on the president of Iran was startling"
New York Times: "opened the event with a 10-minute verbal assault"
Fox News: " Bollinger opened the program with a blistering introduction in which he lambasted Ahmadinejad"</p>
<p>Lee B. certainly "up yours'ed" many of his critics today.</p>
<p>Co2002, I initially agreed that it was a mistake to invite A. to speak at Columbia. I was able to watch the entire thing on CNN yesterday and, after hearing Bollinger's speech, I feel it was worth it to make the man listen to those things about him. I am sure he is not forced to do that very often.</p>
<p>I was quite proud of Bollinger! My d called me just after the event, which she watched with thousands (or so I read) of other students and faculty on the big screen set up outside Lerner. She said Bollinger got a standing ovation from that crowd.</p>
<p>Indeed he did.</p>
<p>Honestly, do you think Ahmad heard anything yesterday at Columbia that he hasn't read/heard a million times already?</p>
<p>I still say that by inviting him to speak at Columbia, they elevated his political standing -- telling him he is an important political figure.</p>
<p>I think it's very unlikely he hears such thoughts ever, and certainly not frequently. Why, in the course of his other daily activities, would he ever have cause to listen to someone who disagreed with him? To say nothing of someone who would really go to town thoroughly and unapologetically?</p>
<p>I think you vastly overestimate the amount of free dialogue conducted in Iran.</p>
<p>He doesn't hear those thoughts from his own country, but believe me, he knows what the rest of the world thinks of him. I don't think any of the questions asked yesterday came as a surprise to him........except maybe the one about homosexuals.</p>
<p>"I still say that by inviting him to speak at Columbia, they elevated his political standing -- telling him he is an important political figure"</p>
<p>excuse yourself, he's been invited to the UN general assembly, how does columbia elevate his status thereafter!?!? and wait... he isn't already an important political figure!? he's the president of a country of like 60 million, voted in by a majority. Hate him all you want, he's pretty damn important. the status that was elevated was columbia's for being able to attract such high profile speakers.</p>
<p>If that's what you want to believe, go ahead. To that I will that by Columbia inviting him to speak, it confirmed his believe that he is a very powerful political figure.</p>
<p>So you think that Ahmad wouldn't take just about any opportunity to spit on American soil? Come on....</p>
<p>He is an extremely important political figure, with or without Columbia's aid. I think Columbia did a good thing by allowing him to speak on campus. How can you denounce another guy's side if you don't get to speak to him? If anything this elevated Columbia's status as the liberal elite university that it is.</p>
<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>^responses to your six points- here we goooo: </p>
<p>1)spin it how you wish, columbia invited A to speak, if A were to request an invitation, there's no loyalty that columbia needs to pay. It's plainly that if someone speaks at a Columbia forum, they are invitied, they wouldn't be able to speak if they were not accepted to speak. From Columbia's perspective this was not an opportunity for A. to do anything, it was a chance for students to learn from a speech by him and a question and answer session there after. (Bollinger's speech probably taught them more though). </p>
<p>he was voted in by a majority and still seems to be well supported in Iran, you have nothing to suggest that he is unpopular/has little support. he was invited to a world leaders forum and was asked questions, he was not just given a spot in a pro-A. rally, as people would have you believe. he also happened to be 'excoriated' by Prezbo. this was an academic debate, Ahmadinejad was certainly rebuked and demanded of to answer questions, in stronger language upfront than we have ever witnessed. This was an anti-A. rally with him present and allowed to speak. This is something that could never happen at the UN.</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>
<ul>
<li>he came off solely as a spin master yesterday, very skillful i might add, but skirted issues.</li>
</ul>
<p>2)"He put lots on the line" - What you call being risky, i call courage and having a spine to stand up to preserve tolerance in today's society. risk or courage, though, it paid off, columbia got positive reviews in the media, and it was a massive learning opportunity for students, who confronted one another, debated and learned and were, as far as i could see, benevolent. The institution came first, that's why security was as tight as it was. they didn't want outside protestors marring campus, or protesters inside going unchecked. no-one's security was in question even once yesterday.The learning environment was fostered more than ever before. </p>
<p>3) in ANY public statement, people will be angry, Bollinger chose a tough (and somewhat insulting) line, to drive the message home that we don't endorse the views we listen to. It was neccessary to protray columbia as neither weak-willed nor extreme left, both of which were questioned.</p>
<p>4)"A. won." - i see, is that why fox news reported 'Iranian President schooled'?
Although here i do agree with you that the rudeness was counter productive, and could have been omitted. Despite the insolence, A was confronted on many issues, and had to skirt many of them.</p>
<p>5)He's the President!!!, if he wasn't important, WHY was his speech aired live on a bunch of news channels? (C-span, MSNBC to name a couple) - shouldn't they be chastized for propagating his views several times more than columbia should, clearly, their scope to propagate views is several times more than columbia's.</p>
<p>6) A. ended by saying he welcomed columbia to his country, and that war is not a solution to anything, and columbia has long denounced war, there wasn't the slightest indication that war should be a solution. It was an attack on views that so many in this country so vehemently oppose. To be fair though, we don't know what will come of it.</p>