<p>Many good points made here. I agree with C2002: it will be very interesting indeed to see if those same people that participated in the Minuteman catastrophe last year have anything to say about A---- coming to speak.</p>
<p>You all are correct, though: the argument can and should be made that Columbia is to be applauded for having him speak. I just hate the idea that this appearance could be used somehow as propaganda for the cause of terrorists later. </p>
<p>I rather hope nobody shows up to hear him, though I am sure that will not happen. I would certainly hate to be in charge of security for this guy (and the students who will be there)...what a nightmare!</p>
<p>
[quote]
I rather hope nobody shows up to hear him, though I am sure that will not happen. I would certainly hate to be in charge of security for this guy (and the students who will be there)...what a nightmare!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Supposedly there will be metal detectors and NYPD at all the entrances/exits of the auditorium and everyone will be subject to search. In addition, I doubt anyone will be allowed on the lower level of lerner (where the auditorium entrances are) at all.</p>
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 presidents 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 Columbias own alumni, Dr. Kian Tajbakhsh (see President Bollinger's prior statement).
<p>Well my friends and I were originally planning to try and sneak in to see him and then we realized that this is a very widely disliked leader of a foreign nation so the chances of three teenages just sneaking in is pretty much nil.</p>
<p>I also like Bollinger's approach--both the parameters of the appearance and the framing of some of the issues. A good example of using Columbia's clout to best advantage. I also tried to read the story on The Spectator and couldn't get it loaded. Thanks for coying this section here.</p>
<p>Hard to respond to everyone, but some of the people here are missing the points that:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>nobody has a RIGHT to speak at Columbia university</p></li>
<li><p>Columbia is exercising ITS RIGHTS to free speech and free association by choosing to invite, or not to invite, someone to speak on campus. Giving Mahmoud a forum to speak IS speech by Columbia.</p></li>
<li><p>Mahmoud will not be suppressed -- or not heard from -- if Columbia doesn't give him a platform to speak on campus. He's going to give a hate-filled speech to the UN that far more people than the 600 people who get invited to this event will hear.</p></li>
<li><p>It's a straw man that people don't want Mahmoud to be able to express himself because of some fear that Columbia students will buy into what he says.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>ME: This isn't the least bit compelling. Unfiltered accounts of what this guy thinks, believes, and says are readily available to any Columbia student. A Columbia student does not need to listen to him in person to formulate an opinion on his views.</p>
<p>DENZERA: by that argument, all an educational institution needs to do is open the doors to the library and the students all ought to educate themselves. Why have classes?</p>
<p>ME: Come on, you can do better than that, Denzera. Why have classes? Because classes at Columbia are -- or at least should be -- more than an assigned reading list and a robot who speaks for 75 minutes. There's laboratories in science classes... classroom discussions between the students and the instructor in the humanities classes... and so on.</p>
<p>And, yes, the top universities do educate people -- and even award them degrees -- by basically opening the doors to the library and having them educate themselves. Ever heard of online education?</p>
<p>"Columbia is exercising ITS RIGHTS to free speech and free association by choosing to invite, or not to invite, someone to speak on campus. Giving Mahmoud a forum to speak IS speech by Columbia."</p>
<ul>
<li>this is a massive error in judgement and logic for a columbia grad, it's free speech first of all, not free association, association has the connotation of support/condonation for his views. By letting him speak we do neither. If invited speeches were considered 'speech by columbia', columbia would be a miserable organization since they'd have to make sure that every speaker's views allign with theirs. </li>
</ul>
<p>The fact that Bollinger is committed to commence by grilling him should make it clear as daylight that columbia isn't in the slightest degree supporting him. so no, ahmadinejad speaking is not columbia's voice or columbia's speech, it represents columbia's fundamental tolerence of opinion. inviting and allowing someone to speak has an educational benefit removed from the support or denunciation of their views.</p>
<p>SHRAF: It is better to listen to people like Ahmadinejad before criticizing or disagreeing rather than just taking whatever is filtered through to you through the media or other such sources and form your opinions based on that.</p>
<p>C2002: This isn't the least bit compelling. Unfiltered accounts of what this guy thinks, believes, and says are readily available to any Columbia student. A Columbia student does not need to listen to him in person to formulate an opinion on his views.</p>
<p>DENZERA: by that argument, all an educational institution needs to do is open the doors to the library and the students all ought to educate themselves. Why have classes?</p>
<p>C2002: Come on, you can do better than that, Denzera. Why have classes? Because classes at Columbia are -- or at least should be -- more than an assigned reading list and a robot who speaks for 75 minutes. There's laboratories in science classes... classroom discussions between the students and the instructor in the humanities classes... and so on. And, yes, the top universities do educate people -- and even award them degrees -- by basically opening the doors to the library and having them educate themselves. Ever heard of online education?</p>
<hr>
<p>DENZERA: You're damn right I can do better than that, but I had assumed I wouldn't have to. You're trying, in your initial statement, to claim that Shraf is wrong because you don't NEED to see Ahmadinejad in the flesh and listen to him in order to form an informed opinion. You're missing the point - no, I don't NEED to see him, but it gives me a much more nuanced and direct understanding of the man and his situation. Similarly, I don't NEED a top education to get ahead in business, but it sure as hell helps.</p>
<p>Classes, as you say quite rightly, are more than just a reading list and a lecturer intoning for 75 minutes twice a week. Just so, world issues and an understanding of international politics are deeper than just reading about it in magazines (the equivalent of "going to the library" to accomplish your education). Having world leaders show up and hold forth on their countries and policies adds value you can't get from anything inanimate, and it sticks in your memory far longer.</p>
<p>Save your sarcasm for someone or something that deserves it.</p>
<p>To quote the Clash "If Adolf Hitler flew into town, they'd send a limousine anyway" </p>
<p>Just because he is Dubya's enemy-of-the-month. It doesn't mean he shouldn't be heard. Allowing him to speak demonstrates to the whole world that America has not lost all its freedoms in the last six years. In reality the smear campaign against Iran is probably another one of Rove' smokescreens to distract us from the Iraq mess. </p>
<p>If you don't want to hear what he says then don't listen.</p>
<p>"I can't believe Columbia is allowing a Holocaust denier to speak on its campus. This is liberalism to the extreme."</p>
<ul>
<li>kindly read the thread before you let your misguided emotions get the best of you. the arguements and reasons for allowing him to speak have nothing to do with liberalism, it's a preservation of freedom of speech, applicable just as much to Jim Gilchrist, or anyone on the far right. the fact that Bollinger is committed to grilling him, should scream that columbia is merely being tolerant of different views and inviting speakers for debate, and it's educational benefit, not for their respective views.</li>
</ul>
<p>This is by definition not a freedom of speech issue. The First Amendment only prohibits Congress from passing laws, not institutions from deciding what content will be presented in their curricula (as in, 'we do not provide fora for terrorist proselytizing'). As has been pointed out before, not allowing Ahmadinejad to speak at a college does not censor him in any way; he has other venues through which he may make known his "opinions."
I think it deplorable that Columbia College is allowing him to speak under the pretense that hearing his ideas is done in the interest of a free exchange of ideas rather than an endorsement, when they have banned ROTC from the campus.</p>
<p>^Yes, no-one said ahmadinejad would be prevented from voicing opinions if columbia were to prevent him from speaking. But if he is invited, he sure as hell should not be prevented from speaking, and no-one should seek to deprive students the chance to hear a speech of his in person and ask questions. This is a preservation of tolerance. Columbia is an academic institution and is committed to exploring, analyzing, criticizing and doubting ideas, and particularly opinions on global affairs. Ahmadinejad coming to columbia is a great opportunity for all of the above.</p>
<p>Care to explain how hearing his ideas in any way endorses them? - for the final time bollinger has committed to grilling him with questions and to challenge his views, portraying columbia to denounce rather than endorse his ideas. Columbia has thousands of speakers every year, many controversial, most of whom don't significantly allign with the views of the university, or whoes views the university does not tout as their own. We do not need to and certainly should not shield ourselves from widely held views, (many people unfortunately do support Ahmadinejad and believe him). Dialogue and debate builds understanding, purges misconceptions and leads to clearer thinking - thank heavens columbia understands this. If his views are extreme, they would become more difficult to defend and his speaking and being questioned should undermine his cause.</p>
<p>"Care to explain how hearing his ideas in any way endorses them?"</p>
<p>If an U.S. university bans the U. S. military from speaking to the students--despite federal funding to the university, the financial benefits offered by the military to students, and the possibility that some students actually HAVE a sense of morality--but INVITES a sworn enemy of the U. S. to speak--despite constant acts of terrorism, barbaric governmental practices, and an endorsement of genocide--then there is no other interpretation than an endorsement.
They can sputter "we disagree with him" all they want--they have demonstrated BY ACTION that they feel his opinion is more worthy of open discussion than that of the U. S. government, or the people who put themselves in harm's way to defend the lives and freedoms of the people here.</p>
<p>"This is a preservation of tolerance."
Well, at least we have admitted that freedom of speech isn't an issue. Now, how much tolerance of anti-semitism, child execution, terrorism, and torture do you have, and what interest does anyone else have in preserving it?</p>
<p>
[quote]
then there is no other interpretation than an endorsement.
[/quote]
that's ludicrous. speakers from both the Democratic and Republican parties speak on college campuses all the time, sometimes simultaneously. does that mean the university "endorses" both?</p>
<p>here's a radical idea... the university gives time to President Ahmadinejad because:
(a) he's the freakin' president of a foreign country, an important one at that
(b) he has something meaningful and unusual to say to students, something that a lot of patriotic militaristic flag-waving can't really accomplish
(c) he happens to be here and this is the only opportunity you'll get for such an event
(d) all of the above.</p>
<p>the university is like a newspaper. The editorials don't necessarily represent the views of the newspaper board or management. if you interpret them as such, that's because you're inclined to see bias in things, not because such bias exists.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I can't believe Columbia is allowing a Holocaust denier to speak on its campus. This is liberalism to the extreme.
[/quote]
i'm sure this has to be sarcasm. Last year they got harangued on national TV for the students essentially denying a right-winger the right to speak. Now allowing a right-winger to speak is unreasonable? That's why I assume it's a joke. Schools like Columbia are always going to get accused of stuff no matter what they do. The most you can do is point out how ridiculous the opinions are of those who trash such schools.</p>
<p>"then there is no other interpretation than an endorsement"</p>
<p>so you're saying that because Columbia disallowed one body from speaking it endorses the views of all others? - are you serious?</p>
<p>I don't know the details of the ROTC issue, columbia was likely wrong to ban them altogether. on the ROTC's wiki page at least, columbia is cited as trying to 'return ROTC to campus'. they were banned in 1968, so way to go pulling that up as relevant evidence.</p>
<p>anything is worthy of open discussion, the more extreme and ridiculous the stance the more open discussion should undermine it. Do not underestimate the ability of tolerance and debate to screw speakers and extreme views over.</p>
<p>"that's ludicrous. speakers from both the Democratic and Republican parties speak on college campuses all the time, sometimes simultaneously. does that mean the university "endorses" both?"</p>
<p>No--but if Democrats are given platforms and Republicans are forbidden to set foot on campus, it does. As for newspaper editorials--they are submitted. Ahmadinejad was INVITED.</p>
<p>Regardless of your politics, equating the Minutemen with Ahmadinejad's regime as "right-wingers" is simply naive.</p>