<p>Confidentialcoll--</p>
<p>Banning one group but inviting--not even allowing, but iniviting--another represents endorsement IF the two groups are in opposition.</p>
<p>As for screwing over extreme views--I have no interest in a vaguely public humiliation of Ahmedinejad. He like all dictators, needs to be removed from power and replaced with a democracy.</p>
<p>they don't let ROTC on campus because its "don't ask don't tell" policy violates university policy. that is a very different thing than inviting the president of a foreign nation who influences the world tremendously to come speak at campus.</p>
<p>If you can't appreciate the difference, or even bother responding to my larger point, why continue? i've always sort of been unimpressed by debating techniques that involve taking one single point of an opposing statement/post and attacking it and ignoring everything else that is less easy to argue.</p>
<p>"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>it's tolerance of such opinion, so that you can undermine such acts and gather support against them. For the record Ahmadinejad touts anti-zionism not anti-semitism - but that's not what we're discussing. </p>
<p>"Banning one group but inviting--not even allowing, but iniviting--another represents endorsement IF the two groups are in opposition."</p>
<p>-1968!
-secondly, i don't see how being anti ROTC 39 years ago, makes columbia pro Ahmadinejad. Is columbia also pro minutemen, because people on campus invited them, the administration allowed it and then punished those who rushed the stage??</p>
<p>"I have no interest in a vaguely public humiliation of Ahmedinejad. He like all dictators, needs to be removed from power and replaced with a democracy."</p>
<p>-how is he to be removed from power if you can't fairly convice people that he is in the wrong? - you aren't going to convince anyone by banning him from speaking at places. And he was definitely elected as president by a majority in Iran in 2005. Given that you overlooked this basic fact, perhaps his speech would have been educational to you.</p>
<p>I thought Columbia's actions with the Minuteman speech was embarassing, but now it just seems like the school loves controversy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A Columbia student asked how he could effectively protest his university's invitation to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak Monday. My first response was to suggest petitions, e-mails to President Bollinger and the university trustees, letters to the student paper, peaceful protest, and the like. All these are fine. But then I had a second thought. There might be one form of protest that would be effective both in showing appropriate disgust for the Iranian regime, and in shaming the Columbia administration: A total student boycott of Ahmadinejad's speech. Let the Iranian president (and the Columbia president) look out on, and speak to, a sea of empty seats on Monday.</p>
<p>The rationale for a student boycott is simple: The Iranian government is directly involved in killing and wounding American soldiers in Iraq. As a gesture of elementary solidarity with those serving our nation in the military--young men and women, many of them their exact contemporaries--Columbia students should refuse to dignify Ahmadinejad's talk by attending it. Needless to say, Columbia faculty and administrators shouldn't attend either. Some of them will. But this is a chance for the 9/11 generation to show a decency and a sense of honor that some of their elders lack. After all, this is not primarily about Ahmadinejad. Dealing with his regime is mostly a task for our government. This is about us. Columbia students have a chance to shame their elders, redeem the good name of their institution, and make many Americans proud. I urge them to take it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why don't the Columbia students take a stand against terrorism, and boycott this speech?</p>
<p>Because this isn't a terrorist convention. PrezBo is forcing Ahmadinejad to address several interesting issues, not giving him free reign. If the title of the event was "Ahmadinejad hosts terrorist convention at Columbia University" then boycotting it would be taking a stand against terrorism. You can't ignore people if you happen to disagree with their ideas. Why should people who don't share your values agree with your side when all you do is not listen to their arguments.</p>
<p>When the Minutemen came to campus, they were harrased and their speech was disrupted. I doubt the same will occur for Ahmadinejad but I hope the students will prove me wrong.</p>
<p>If people try and rush Ahmadinejad, they'll probably get shot. Can you picture the scenario? They've got really tight security and metal detectors and everything. There are people with guns and weapons controlling everything. A dozen kids rush the the President of Iran and what would happen?</p>
<p>"When the Minutemen came to campus, they were harrased and their speech was disrupted. I doubt the same will occur for Ahmadinejad but I hope the students will prove me wrong."</p>
<ul>
<li>yes! let's all be destructive, because that's the only way justice can be achieved. </li>
</ul>
<p>The people who rushed the stage during the Gilchrist speech were idiots, they not only got into trouble, embarrased/marred columbia and prevented others from hearing the minutemen, but they completely undermined their cause. they're behavior, lost them favor, lost them credibility and pushed stable headed moderates away from their anti minutemen stance, reaffirming views against theirs.</p>
<p>"If people try and rush Ahmadinejad, they'll probably get shot"</p>
<p>-there's a chance.</p>
<p>imagine the consequences of this man being physically harmed in this country...there will be an insane amount of security on campus this monday.</p>
<p>Was Adolf Hitler ever invited to speak to an American University? The question is not rhetorical, btw. </p>
<p>One of the problems with our american society is that under the name of our democracy, we extend the same privilege even to those who preach and live to destroy us.</p>
<p>"One of the problems with our american society is that under the name of our democracy, we extend the same privilege even to those who preach and live to destroy us."</p>
<ul>
<li>as we should, that's how you can work towards undermining them. - let them speak, treat them with respect, earn credibility, denounce their views in a logical stable headed fashion, you'll swing at least a few people that way. Sarkozy, President of France, did exactly this and was elected or at least elected by a greater majority as a result. However, if you shield yourself from where the views originate, you satisfy a few, but you don't change anyone's mind who does support Ahmadinejad. not allowing him to speak is not going to improve anything in terms of public opinion of him or his views, it's just a massive educational opportunity that columbia will let up on.</li>
</ul>
<p>"Was Adolf Hitler ever invited to speak to an American University?"</p>
<p>not sure, they didn't travel much back then, and there wasn't much of a culture of international political debate as there is today. And if hitler existed today, i would consider allowing him to speak, it would work towards weakening his monopoly on information. With the internet and media broadcasting the whole spectrum of views all over the world, a monopoly on information that hitler had in WW2 would never be able to materialize today. That's why i support free speech and tolerance of views, because people (esp in the US) have easy access to volumes of information, so blatant and satanic crimes like the Holocaust could never get nearly as much support as they could in Hitler's time. And by allowing him to speak, you could more easily appeal to people's common sense, use widely available information, and likely swing opinion against him.</p>
<p>I thought I would return to the forum to add some insight.</p>
<p>I will be attending the speech on Monday and am extremely excited to see the man. Note: I am a Jew and a supporter of Israel. </p>
<p>The point of this entire process is to hear a foreign leader speak about his or views, no matter how accurate or misguided they in fact are. By allowing Ahmadinejad to speak freely in Iran doesn't do anyone any good. While there, he can't be challenged because if he is, he has the right to get rid of that person.</p>
<p>Here in the United States, and at Columbia on Monday, he won't be able to escape the questions directed towards him. His agreement to speak allows members of the CU community to actually submit questions that he cannot avoid with a simple "no comment" or the removal of the questioner.</p>
<p>We must challenge world leaders because they shape our everyday lives. I do not agree with a single policy that Ahmadinejad has established in Iran and I don't agree with any of views on history. What I will say is that the opportunity to see this man is too much to pass up. It will be a unique experience in that this will be his first ever public US apperance not in the United Nations.</p>
<p>I applaud Columbia for taking the risk of inviting him knowing full well that the majority of the nation won't appreciate his setting foot in our nation. This is certainly a rare opportunity and one that none of us should pass up.</p>
<p>He can come, but we will be there to protest him. 116th and Broadway @ 1PM. </p>
<p>-support & funding of terrorism
-wish for the total destruction of the state of Israel
-development of Nuclear weapons
-Holocaust denial
-human rights violations</p>
<p>No ROTC? No Ahmadinejad!</p>
<p>
[quote]
He like all dictators, needs to be removed from power and replaced with a democracy.
[/quote]
</p>
<ol>
<li>he's not a dictator....unlike bush, the majority of people in his country actually willingly voted for him in an election</li>
<li>are you seriously suggesting we do iraq round 2? are you insane or are you just too distracted by OJ and Britney to realize that in liberating iraq we have caused a gigantic humanitarian disaster, further destabilized the region and created a breading ground for terrorism while spending trillions of dollars and having over 3300 american soldiers killed?</li>
</ol>
<p>
[quote]
Regardless of your politics, equating the Minutemen with Ahmadinejad's regime as "right-wingers" is simply naive.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>as much as certain people want you to believe it....the definition of "right-winger" is not "someone who agrees with george bush".</p>
<p>QUESTION OF THE DAY:</p>
<p>Will this event ultimately RAISE Columbia's profile, or LOWER it?</p>
<p>^wouldn't be able to guage until after the event. If Ahmadinejad's stage is not rushed, he's treated with respect, and then grilled with good questions and fiercely but stable-headedly debated against, then the most number of people will treat this as a right decision. Clearly many individuals and news agencies are never going to see this as productive regardless of the outcome, and many will not see it as unproducive regardless of the outcome. There are many parts of the country where people don't really know of columbia university, such a high profile visit should work towards changing that, at any rate it'll help people discern between our columbia and others. (in some cases between CU and Universidad Nacional de Colombia :p)</p>
<p>jaug1 -- the extremists have an answer for everything. maybe he's never been challenged by a live audience, but he knows what the civilized world thinks. he'll be more than prepared for the "challenges" thrown to him by Columbia. </p>
<p>i'd like to see a boycott of the whole thing -- not even a demonstration.</p>
<p>"jaug1 -- the extremists have an answer for everything."</p>
<ul>
<li>yes, as i'm sure they do, as most everyone does. what matters is whether he can convince people of extreme views. Having an answer is very different from having people accept an answer. You act like people of America and of Columbia don't have the sense to evaluate reason on their own. Even if you think they do not, we should give them the chance to weigh both sides with this deabte. And by people i'm referring to both pro and anti-Ahmadinejad people. No-one's saying Ahmadinejad is going to be lost for words at any point, he's a skillful politician and rhetorician, but he isn't going up against a bunch of 5th graders. Bollinger should be able to aptly deconstruct arguements and challenge him. And because A's views in the US are both extreme and little respected, he should have a tough time convincing anyone.</li>
</ul>
<p>" i'd like to see a boycott of the whole thing -- not even a demonstration."</p>
<p>those who wish to boycott should not have signed up in the first place. There are several times more people wanting to go to this event than space allows. Someone who does boycott, would be letting up on a massive, possibly once in a lifetime opportunity.</p>
<p>I don't believe that anybody going to hear him is thinking that there is a remote chance that he'll convince them of anything. I don't even believe that A thinks he is going to convince anybody attending the lecture of anything. He's using Columbia as a platform to get his rhetoric published in newspapers everywhere. I just hope Columbia doesn't come out of this looking like a bunch of 5th graders. He's a very clever man.......</p>
<p>In order for the boycott of this madman to take place, it would require those who signed up not to attend. If there's no audience, there's no platform and no publicity for this crazed individual.</p>