<p>i thought the whole event was a big success, it was anti-Ahmadinejad. I think Columbia and espeically Bollinger proved today that you can certainly have controvertial speakers come to a campus, and not endorse their views. This afternoon, I witnessed the level of dialogue and debate that was going on in and around campus and it made me feel a deep sense of pride that I was at an institution that forstered learning, debate and high level criticism of opinion. such a level of interaction and positive confrontation would not have been possible without the univ's insistence on being tolerant and going ahead with the event, despite threats and calls to stop the university from having the event, So Prezbo - I owe you.</p>
<p>Major respect for Prezbo.</p>
<p>Kudos to Columbia for not bending to pressure! I remember that David Duke spoke on campus when I was there in the early 90s.</p>
<p>I'm surely going to watch/listen myself later tonight, but from the media accounts and the posts on here, the event strikes me as a total waste. As I predicted, he wouldn't answer the tough questions and filibustered with his own rantings. Unless someone is there to interrupt him after 10 seconds when he strays, he won't answer.</p>
<p>^ Agree, a total waste. Wasn't worth the controversy and I know for a fact that it alienated many contributors.</p>
<p>"i thought the whole event was a big success, it was anti-Ahmadinejad. I think Columbia and espeically Bollinger proved today that you can certainly have controvertial speakers come to a campus, and not endorse their views. "</p>
<p>You certainly can but why does the Columbia administration allow one speaker to be physically attacked and threatened by a mob but supple security galore for another? Is it because they want one set of ideas to be heard and not another? I cannot see any other reason. Columbia thinks a state sponsor of terrorism should be heard but an American citizen with controversial but hardly extremist views should not.</p>
<p>Dr Bollinger has a long hstory and most of it illustrates a questionable attachment to free speech. I hope Columbia's alumni are happy with him.</p>
<p>Some things I found intreseting</p>
<p>-nobody knows exactly what are the sources of the media that convinces us daily of Iran's support of terrorism
-Bollinger found it necessary to insult the guy before actually hearing what he has to say, as if to install in the minds of the audience that whatever he says is automatically wrong
-Ahmadinejad refused to give a "yes/no" reply to whether he supports the destruction of Israel (it's kinda obvious that he does)
-he does not seem to consider Holocaust a myth anymore, yet he finds it necessary to debate its role?
-he professes love for the Jewish people, just like any other people. I guess it's the nation that bugs him?
-his "there are no homosexuals in Iran" is lol, then why is there a law that punishes that by death?</p>
<p>" Is it because they want one set of ideas to be heard and not another? "</p>
<p>Well, they're both right-wing nutjobs, so it isn't for ideological reasons.</p>
<p>Or, yes, Columbia is pro-terrorism. that's a reasonable assumption. Why didn't i see that sooner?:rolleyes:</p>
<p>More to the point, Gilchrist wasn't attacked; people rushed the stage to hold up a sign. Stupid, but hardly violent. Today, the size and virulence of protests at CU were known to be much greater, and I for one, as a parent of a kid there, didn't mind a little security, considering some of the extreme comments I have heard, even here on CC.</p>
<p>I'm so surprised. I thought I could expect better from CCers. I guess not. I suppose most CCers who have posted in this thread fall within those 33 percent of Americans who will accept any their government says for face value.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You certainly can but why does the Columbia administration allow one speaker to be physically attacked and threatened by a mob but supple security galore for another? Is it because they want one set of ideas to be heard and not another? I cannot see any other reason.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>the ACTUAL reason is as follows: the college republicans who invited Gilchrist, for some odd/stupid reason, did not foresee that he would be a highly controversial figure and did not have a sufficient security presence whereas SIPA (the school of international and public affairs) who invited Ahmadinejad, of course foresaw that there would be controversy etc etc had more than enough security for the event ....and of course if you didn't make the connection yet....having more security lessens the likelihood that something like rushing the stage would happen. OH and of course you can't overlook (as you are doing) the fact that the students who pulled that stunt were punished by the university. So i don't see exactly how you can say that the university wants one speaker to be heard and not another.....if you want to blame anyone for the Gilchrist issue you can blame the columbia republicans or the idiotic students who rushed the stage but it is completely misinformed and illogical to blame the university. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Dr Bollinger has a long hstory and most of it illustrates a questionable attachment to free speech. I hope Columbia's alumni are happy with him.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"questionable" .....what are you talking about....please back that up.....by questionable do you mean he is one of the most respected free speech scholars of our time? or are you just referring to the Gilchrist incident which i have already proven to you that it wasn't the university's or bolinger's fault.</p>
<p>now for the speech:</p>
<p>
[quote]
-Bollinger found it necessary to insult the guy before actually hearing what he has to say, as if to install in the minds of the audience that whatever he says is automatically wrong
[/quote]
</p>
<p>i unfortunately went late so i didnt get to hear the intro...i'll watch it later online...but it seems like he was trying to ride the fence or play both sides by actually approving of the invitation and then giving an overly harsh and overtly biased introduction.</p>
<p>
[quote]
-Ahmadinejad refused to give a "yes/no" reply to whether he supports the destruction of Israel (it's kinda obvious that he does)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>as do most politicians everywhere, i wasn't surprised by this</p>
<p>
[quote]
-his "there are no homosexuals in Iran" is lol, then why is there a law that punishes that by death?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>that was HILARIOUS ....i also liked how the dean of SIPA actually challenged him to answer that part of the question....kudos </p>
<p>as for his views on israel and the Holocaust...i was surprised that he openly acknowledged the Holocaust.....media reports and certain people on here made it seem like he was very hard line on that one. His views on israel seemed quite on par with the views of the vast majority of politicians and citizens in middle eastern and arab countries and many times drew applause from the crowd (both inside and on the lawn) like when he asked why the palestinian people are the ones who have to pay the price for the holocaust when they had nothing to do with WWII or the holocaust. I think his answers to the nuclear power questions made him seem very bitter ....his claims that the western nations want to hold iran back by not helping them and cites a few nuclear deals that fell though....this bitter stance seems troubling. </p>
<p>i think his visit really did open up a dialog at least among students and i found what he had to say very informative in terms of hearing something other than the american side of the debate. I think overall the event was a big success since it brought out the majority of students to listen, think, debate, and question and i'm sure everyone out there...whether they were outside protesting, on campus protesting, on campus listening, in the auditorium listening, or at home listening learned something from someone (not necessarily ahmadinejad) concerning some relevant issue. </p>
<p>And a word about the protesters...though it was, as far as i could see, a very peaceful protest...their insistence on blocking the path to get into the gates of columbia despite numerous attempt by the cops to get them to clear a path for people to pass was not only childish but anti-american. Also, some of the signs...like one showing ahmadinejad and bolinger performing a lewd act and making reference to killing american soldiers and "****ing on their graves"....though amusing at first glance is not only vile and inappropriate but lends nothing to the debate and devalues the message of the protesters.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm so surprised. I thought I could expect better from CCers. I guess not. I suppose most CCers who have posted in this thread fall within those 33 percent of Americans who will accept any their government says for face value.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think you actually need to do a bit more research into who posting on this board is a columbia student/alum and who is not….i think you are incorrectly assuming that some people are</p>
<p>Edit to above post: I just watched the bolinger part and i think he did a good job of framing the debate though he did take it overboard at some points ....he might've been better served by just delivering the facts that he did deliver without editorializing too much.</p>
<p>I thought the protest outside of the gates was relatively tame.</p>
<p>I don't want to dignify this post too much by inviting it to campus, but:
[quote]
why does the Columbia administration allow one speaker to be physically attacked and threatened by a mob but supple security galore for another? Is it because they want one set of ideas to be heard and not another? I cannot see any other reason. Columbia thinks a state sponsor of terrorism should be heard but an American citizen with controversial but hardly extremist views should not.
[/quote]
1) Because one of them is a paramilitary vigilante, and the other is the freakin head-of-state of a foreign nation.</p>
<p>2) As stated elsewhere, he wasn't physically attacked, and if you were at the event or watched the videos, Gilchrist's crew on stage actually were pushing the roughest. But why let facts get in the way?</p>
<p>3) If the Minutemen aren't extremists, then I'd hate to... nah, I won't even finish that thought. If you think they're not extremists, you're a nutjob. The two are at equivalent distances from the political center. </p>
<p>4) You can't decry Columbia for not respecting free speech when students rush the stage at an event, and then decry Columbia for taking free speech overboard when they invite a controversial head of state during the UN General Assembly. Either Columbia should or should not serve as a public forum for influential ideas and people; you don't get to pick and choose based on whether they are Americans or not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Dr Bollinger has a long hstory and most of it illustrates a questionable attachment to free speech. I hope Columbia's alumni are happy with him.
[/quote]
very happy, glad you asked.</p>
<p>Bollinger has forgotten more about the subtleties of freedom of speech than anyone here on this board knows about it, including those (like me) who have taken his class on the subject and read the books he has written on the subject.</p>
<p>Thanks for playing, higherlead.</p>
<p>Mommy said never argue with an idiot people might not know who is who. I am going to take her advice to heart and sign off on this thread. An Ivy League minset is a scarry thing.</p>
<p>Speak for yourself Denzera when you say that the alumni are very happy with Bollinger. Didn't you see the alum on tv that was standing outside the gates selling his Columbia diploma for $1???????????</p>
<p>acinva--surprised you sent your kid here; you seem to have little regard for the place.</p>
<p>HL--rather than vague pronouncements, what part of Denzera's post did not make sense to you (or do you just like throwing around "idiot" insults heedlessly?).</p>
<p>garland -- my son chose Colulmbia, I didn't.....</p>
<p>
[quote]
Speak for yourself Denzera when you say that the alumni are very happy with Bollinger. Didn't you see the alum on tv that was standing outside the gates selling his Columbia diploma for $1???????????
[/quote]
I am, of course, speaking for myself. But at least I count as an alum, which is more than I can say for several of those who are stating here that "alumni are gonna be mad".</p>
<p>Sure there are people who are upset about it. I received an email this morning from Eric Furda, VP of alumni relations, acknowledging letters of dismay but also thanking the many who sent letters of support. Something tells me a guy who's selling his Columbia diploma on the steps of college walk, during the workday, may not be representative of the alumni corpus out there.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/opinion/26dowd.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/opinion/26dowd.html</a> </p>
<p>a very good editorial about this saga </p>
<p>
[quote]
Mommy said never argue with an idiot people might not know who is who. I am going to take her advice to heart and sign off on this thread. An Ivy League minset is a scarry thing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>LOL ....i see higherlead is taking the approach the brits took in iraq: declare victory and leave even though you're clearly losing. This also reminds me of stewie (from family guy)....."victory is mine!" <em>runs off</em></p>
<p>
[quote]
Didn't you see the alum on tv that was standing outside the gates selling his Columbia diploma for $1???????????
[/quote]
</p>
<p>it is sad and silly how some peoples' blind support for israel supersedes anything else. I hope you realized that most of those protesters are just ****ed off at ahmadinejad's views on israel and are using all the other topics (human rights, nuclear threat, etc) just to get your attention and get you to sympathize with their position. Mind you the majority if not all other arab leaders (who are our "friends") feel the same way about israel (and in some cases tried to wipe israel off the map in the past)...they just don't express their views as bluntly as the iranian president because they don't want to loose US support of their (you guessed it) oppressive tyrannical human rights violating dictatorial regimes (and in some cases fundamentalist). Now i'm pretty sure that if the president of egypt or the king of jordan or the king of saudi arabia came to speak at columbia we wouldnt be having this discussion or any protests despite the fact that they are all guilty of most things ahmadinejad is guilty of...they just don't express their views on israel as bluntly.</p>
<p>It was a mistake inviting the President of Iran to speak at Columbia. I believe, this whole discussion shows how out of touch many americans are about what 's going on in the world. We are so blinded with self righteousness about freedom of speech that we fail to act in ways that would benefit us more as a nation.</p>
<p>The President of Iran got exactly what he wanted from his appearance. He got to speak to the world and presented himself as an academician, as a professor and as a scientist interested in research. He showed himself speaking to 'colleagues' in an academic setting. His goofiness, his smiles and his rather mild and almost gracious tolerance to the INSULTS of the host were more likely to gain him sympathy from his admirers and from those OUTSIDE the United States. </p>
<p>What Bollinger did, resonated well only with the american media and with those that had criticized him for inviting the President. I believe that this was a rather "provincial" approach. Everyone knew that the President was going to dodge the tough questions as expected and was going to retract nothing about the holocaust, Israel, etc. Based on that premise...I ask, what was there to be gained from that invitation? </p>
<p>The real danger is that this man could now be dismissed even more as a lunatic ( no gays in Iran? ). Because of his comments he may look less dangerous and easier to dismiss. However, it is clear that his behavior is intentional and well planned. All he talked was about the plight of the palestinians, he invoked the Coran and he said that Iran was a peaceful nation. He could not be pinned down about the human right abuses in his country, etc. This is what the muslim world saw.</p>
<p>It will be interesting to see how politicians deal with him in the future, but to me is clear that this guy can very easily get us into another war. Just think about this: If he says that Iran does not have weapons of mass destruction..........who would dare to believe him????!!!! After all, there are no homosexuals in Iran. Either way, we will be screwed.</p>