Iranian University Chancellors Ask Bollinger 10 Questions

Colleges and Universities A-Z Columbia University
1

<p>Seven chancellors and presidents of Iranian universities and research centers, in a letter addressed to their counterpart in the US, Colombia University, denounced Lee Bollinger's insulting words against the Iranian nation and president and invited him to provide responses to 10 questions by Iranian academics and intellectuals.</p>

<p>The following is the full text of the letter: </p>

<p>Mr. Lee Bollinger
Columbia University President </p>

<p>We, the professors and heads of universities and research institutions in Tehran, hereby announce our displeasure and protest at your impolite remarks prior to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent speech at Columbia University. </p>

<p>We would like to inform you that President Ahmadinejad was elected directly by the Iranian people through an enthusiastic two-round poll in which almost all of the country's political parties and groups participated. To assess the quality and nature of these elections you may refer to US news reports on the poll dated June 2005. </p>

<p>Your insult, in a scholarly atmosphere, to the president of a country with a population of 72 million and a recorded history of 7,000 years of civilization and culture is deeply shameful. </p>

<p>Your comments, filled with hate and disgust, may well have been influenced by extreme pressure from the media, but it is regrettable that media policy-makers can determine the stance a university president adopts in his speech. </p>

<p>Your remarks about our country included unsubstantiated accusations that were the product of guesswork as well as media propaganda. Some of your claims result from misunderstandings that can be clarified through dialogue and further research. </p>

<p>During his speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad answered a number of your questions and those of students. We are prepared to answer any remaining questions in a scientific, open and direct debate. </p>

<p>You asked the president approximately ten questions. Allow us to ask you ten of our own questions in the hope that your response will help clear the atmosphere of misunderstanding and distrust between our two countries and reveal the truth. </p>

<p>1- Why did the US media put you under so much pressure to prevent Mr. Ahmadinejad from delivering his speech at Columbia University? And why have American TV networks been broadcasting hours of news reports insulting our president while refusing to allow him the opportunity to respond? Is this not against the principle of freedom of speech? </p>

<p>2- Why, in 1953, did the US administration overthrow Iran's national government under Dr Mohammad Mosaddegh and go on to support the Shah's dictatorship? </p>

<p>3- Why did the US support the blood-thirsty dictator Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 Iraqi-imposed war on Iran, considering his reckless use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers defending their land and even against his own people? </p>

<p>4- Why is the US putting pressure on the government elected by the majority of Palestinians in Gaza instead of officially recognizing it? And why does it oppose Iran's proposal to resolve the 60-year-old Palestinian issue through a general referendum? </p>

<p>5- Why has the US military failed to find Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden even with all its advanced equipment? How do you justify the old friendship between the Bush and Bin Laden families and their cooperation on oil deals? How can you justify the Bush administration's efforts to disrupt investigations concerning the September 11 attacks? </p>

<p>6- Why does the US administration support the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) despite the fact that the group has officially and openly accepted the responsibility for numerous deadly bombings and massacres in Iran and Iraq? Why does the US refuse to allow Iran's current government to act against the MKO's main base in Iraq? </p>

<p>7- Was the US invasion of Iraq based on international consensus and did international institutions support it? What was the real purpose behind the invasion which has claimed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives? Where are the weapons of mass destruction that the US claimed were being stockpiled in Iraq? </p>

<p>8- Why do America's closest allies in the Middle East come from extremely undemocratic governments with absolutist monarchical regimes? </p>

<p>9- Why did the US oppose the plan for a Middle East free of unconventional weapons in the recent session of the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors despite the fact the move won the support of all members other than Israel? </p>

<p>10- Why is the US displeased with Iran's agreement with the IAEA and why does it openly oppose any progress in talks between Iran and the agency to resolve the nuclear issue under international law? </p>

<p>Finally, we would like to express our readiness to invite you and other scientific delegations to our country. A trip to Iran would allow you and your colleagues to speak directly with Iranians from all walks of life including intellectuals and university scholars. You could then assess the realities of Iranian society without media censorship before making judgments about the Iranian nation and government. </p>

<p>You can be assured that Iranians are very polite and hospitable toward their guests.</p>

2

<p>Just to clarify, I am not pro Iranian or anything in that sense; I just intitally felt it was wrong for him to be there before being convinced due to the foundations of America and freedom of speech. I was forwarded some of these articles which I thought were atleast interesting to read another perspective. I dont necesserily agree, just thought it was an interesting read and wanted to see some reactions. -greg</p>

3

<p>These questions are ridiculous and not relevant to Bollinger...Bollinger isn't a government figure, so he isn't responsible for half of these questions.</p>

4

<p>It is driving me a little nuts that it's never mentioned ANYWHERE that Bollinger did exactly what he said he would do in introducing Ahmadinejad. It was a precondition of the man's appearance in fact!</p>

<p>This from Bollinger prior to the forum:</p>

<p>
[quote]
In order to have such a University-wide forum, we have insisted that a number of conditions be met, first and foremost that President Ahmadinejad agree to divide his time evenly between delivering remarks and responding to audience questions. I also wanted to be sure the Iranians understood that I would myself introduce the event with a series of sharp challenges to the president on issues including:</p>

<ul>
<li>the Iranian president’s denial of the Holocaust;</li>
<li>his public call for the destruction of the State of Israel;</li>
<li>his reported support for international terrorism that targets innocent civilians and American troops;</li>
<li>Iran's pursuit of nuclear ambitions in opposition to international sanction;</li>
<li>his government's widely documented suppression of civil society and particularly of women's rights; and</li>
<li>his government's imprisoning of journalists and scholars, including one of Columbia’s own alumni, Dr. Kian Tajbakhsh (see President Bollinger's prior statement).

[/quote]
</li>
</ul>

<p>And I agree the "questions" posed by the Iranian "scholars" are not relevant to Lee Bollinger. And I am sure those people had a little, umm let's say "guidance" in preparing them.</p>

5

<p>read the top, they say he is the one who made those comments toward ahmad and they were not exactly true accroding to what they believe so they wrote back to him an open invite of scholarly debate, that would be interesting to see...still not meaning i am on "their" side, its sad that I continue to be labeled jsut because I post an interesting topic and article that I read, is it wrong to just even read an oppositions article? or is that just ignorant.. -greg</p>

6

<p>this is an interesting letter, and the questions they ask are fair and pressing - but as viva pointed out, Bollinger is absolutely the wrong person to ask for all of them except #1. I imagine Bollinger's response to #1 would go something like:</p>

<p>
[quote]
1- Why did the US media put you under so much pressure to prevent Mr. Ahmadinejad from delivering his speech at Columbia University? And why have American TV networks been broadcasting hours of news reports insulting our president while refusing to allow him the opportunity to respond? Is this not against the principle of freedom of speech?

[/quote]

I cannot speak for the various TV stations, newspapers, radio stations, interest groups, and influential policymakers who may or may not have attempted to influence the existence, format, or outcomes of the event last Monday. However, I can assure you, as I have assured other media outlets in our country, that absolutely none of that commentary influenced this University's decision to invite President Ahmadinejad to our World Leaders Forum, or the format in which he was invited to appear. The original invitation was made by [the guy at SIPA who invited him], and we discussed the various subjects we would need to bring up during the event in order to demonstrate that we are not unaware of the staggering list of offenses that President Ahmadinejad, wittingly or unwittingly, has committed and continues to commit either personally on or behalf of his country's government. We would do the same should the president of North Korea, say, or Zimbabwe, choose to appear at our World Leaders Forum. It would be folly to suggest that all foreign heads-of-state be treated equally, since no two foreign nations (or foreign policies) are alike.</p>

<p>It is a perhaps-unfortunate consequence of free speech and free press, that those granted a platform to exercise those rights may sometimes say things that are angry or offensive - even to the President of a foreign nation. As I noted in my speech, such a dialogue would never be permitted in President Ahmadinejad's country, and it is unlikely that he has ever heard those criticisms put so plainly to him, in unmistakeable terms. I submit that, for his country to interact with the rest of the modern world on equal terms for the advancement of humanity, he may need to deeply consider the questions that were posed to him last Monday and maybe even bring about some change in his country. It is my hope that the seeds of such action, however small, may have been planted by our University's event.</p>

<p>To answer your question from a legal perspective, the media outlets who have voiced criticisms of your President are under no obligation, legally or even ethically, to allow him the chance to respond. Anyone may speak, but not all are obligated to listen. Likewise, someone who is speaking is under no obligation to promote or "give equal time" to an opposite point of view. There are some situations in this country (such as giving airtime to the ads of candidates for political office) where such a balance is enforced by law; but it is not a requirement of the constitutional right to free speech. If President Ahmadinejad wants to address the criticisms levied against him, and is offered no invitation to do so, he is welcome to call a press conference just like anyone else - and then find out whether anyone is interested in hearing what he has to say. Such are the practicalities of free speech, in our country and any other.</p>

<p>Best Regards,</p>

<p>Lee Bollinger</p>

<p>(note: I just made that up, Bollinger didn't actually say it - but knowing something of the man, I imagine similar thoughts would run through his head)</p>