Op-Ed
Mr. Ahmadinejad Goes to Columbia
Email: 
Share: 
Infomaniacs Anonymous
.jpg "Infomaniacs Anonymous")
Why am I so angry about this, I wondered, my heart palpitating as I poured through the accounts of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech yesterday at Columbia. It was over-— the Iranian president would soon be on a plane back to Tehran — and yet somehow it still wasn’t over for me. Grow up, I told myself. So what, Columbia hosted a world leader who denies the Holocaust, supports Israel’s destruction, seeks nukes, believes the End is nigh, oppresses women and executes gays (though apparently they “have [none] in Iran“) … It was all in the spirit of academic inquiry — why was I getting so worked up? And then it hit me: I was asking the wrong question. I had plenty of reasons to be outraged; what I couldn’t figure out was why so many others weren’t.
“Freedom of speech is what makes our country so great,” my friends at The Sun rhapsodized in yesterday’s editorial. “If we were to deny [Ahmadinejad] a podium to espouse [his] views, our policies would be no better than [his] own. We may not agree with what you have to say, Mahmoud, but we’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”
Alas, my friends aren’t as bright as I imagined if they don’t grasp — or can’t articulate — the difference between a right (freedom of speech) and a privilege (speaking at an Ivy League university). Do the editorial’s authors really believe, as they imply, that a decision by Columbia not to provide this apocalyptic psychopath “a podium to espouse [his] views” would be akin to shutting down reformist newspapers, imprisoning liberal professors and executing democratic dissidents? I’m reassured, at least, that they “may not agree with what Ahmadinejad has to say” (I guess do not was too strong) even if they’ll “defend to the death his right to say it” (to the death … how apt). Sadly, my editors weren’t nearly as keen on defending my right to publish the original version of this paragraph.
The Sun’s confusion notwithstanding, the controversy over Ahmadinejad’s Columbia visit never was over free speech — nobody serious was disputing Ahmadinejad’s right to say whatever he wished, wherever he happened to be. Nor was it a legal matter — Columbia, located as it is within a prescribed radius of the United Nations, broke no law in inviting the Iranian president while he was in town. This was foremost about Columbia’s wisdom (or lack thereof) in granting someone with Ahmadinejad’s resume the unavoidable legitimacy that comes with a brand name like theirs.
Yet everywhere I looked, at Columbia and Cornell, howls of protest were overwhelmed by whistles of approval. Predictably, the loudest voices defending Ahmadinejad’s appearance emanated from Columbia’s sizable far left — the same crowd, ironically, whose members saw it fit to rush the stage during Minutemen founder Jim Gilchrist’s speech last year. Apparently, these so-called liberals only approve of their school hosting militant xenophobes if they’re Third-World militant xenophobes. At least John Coatsworth, dean of Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs, was consistent — he said that if the year were 1939, and Hitler were in town, “we’d certainly invite him to speak” — consistently insane, but consistent. (Incidentally, Columbia did host Nazi envoy Hans Luther in 1933, so I guess they had a history to live up to.)
President Bollinger, who deserves some credit for his strikingly non-deferential introduction of Ahmadinejad, framed the Iranian leader’s visit as an opportunity for robust debate. I’m not sure what debate he envisioned — whether the Holocaust happened? Whether homosexuals should be stoned? But I agree that this forum, at the very least, provided an opportunity for this nut to be challenged. Too many others, however, summed up the value of Ahmadinejad’s visit differently — as an opportunity not to debate this man’s primitive ideas, but to engage him in a dialogue.
The useful idiots who subscribe to this view seem to believe that the American confrontation with radical Islam is really just the result of one giant miscommunication — and that if we just all get together and hear each other out, we can hammer out our differences.
“9/11 was a failure of human understanding,” said Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick in his first 9/11 address two weeks ago. “It was a mean and nasty and bitter attack on the United States. But it was also a failure of human beings to understand each other, to learn to love each other.”
The keyword in Mister Rogers’ speech here is each other. The fault for 9/11 was mutual. It wasn’t just the Jihadists who failed to understand us — it was also you, dear reader, who failed to understand them … to love them.
Sorry, Deval Patrick, but I believe I understand them just fine. And I do not wish to love them.
(Forgive me for nitpicking here, but am I alone in finding something wanting in Governor Rogers’ characterization of the 9/11 attacks as “mean,” “nasty” and “bitter?” The schoolyard bully who stole my lunch money was “mean;” the way my ex-girlfriend speaks to me is “bitter;” the letters I plan to receive in response this column will be “nasty;” the attacks of 9/11 were barbaric.)
Governor Patrick and his fellow cheerleaders for dialogue with the forces of Jihad fail to appreciate just how serious — and, unfortunately, how numerous — our foes in the Muslim world are, be they Sunni Salafists like bin Laden or Shi’ite apocalyptics like Ahmadinejad.
Fortunately, what we’ve been witnessing since 9/11 is not so much a clash of civilizations as it is a clash within a civilization — between those who would keep the Muslim world in the past and those who would bring it into the future. And we have many Muslim allies in that struggle — it is with them that we should be having a dialogue, one on how to confront these retrograde forces together.
If Columbia wants its students to better understand the views of Ahmadinejad, it should encourage them to pick up a newspaper (he seems to enjoy the front page). If it wants to start a productive discussion about how to move Iran, let it invite someone like Nobel Peace Prize Winner Shirin Ebadi, who’s been jailed by the current regime for fighting its human-rights abuses. She, not Ahmadinejad, represents the real Iran — a civilized nation being held captive by medieval-minded rulers.
Ben Birnbaum is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be contacted at bbirnbaum@cornellsun.com. Infomaniacs Anonymous appears Tuesdays this semester.
sounds like the U.S.
"a civilized nation being held captive by medieval-minded rulers"
Yes, let's compare the US to
Yes, let's compare the US to a country that kills its gay citizens and rape victims and has a police force dedicated to enforcing dress codes for women.
Pres. Bollinger Introduction Inappropriate
I just wanted to add my thoughts on this:
On Monday night people came to hear the controversial political leader of Iran speak and ask him questions to controversial stances his administration has taken; not to hear Dr. Bollinger speak.
No matter what the President's, trustees of the University, or students opinion is of Mr. Ahmadinejad there is certain etiquette that needs to be followed when you invite a speaker. Columbia University invited the Iranian head of state to speak at their school and then proceeded to insult their invited guest before he even said a word. Where’s the objective platform, where is the respect, if not for the man for the principle of an invited guest. I thought this event would encourage other leaders of controversial institutions and states to come and feel like they have a fair platform in the United States, especially at an academic institution. What an opportunity for students to ask important questions to such an important figure of our time and a prominent antagonist to many students’ social justice antennas. But after Monday night’s events were reminiscent of something out of a George Orwell or Phillip Roth book the progress made to bring open and controversial dialgoue and speakers to campuses in the USA has seriously faltered. Mr. Ahmadinejad said it best, “In Iran...we actually respect our students and the professors by allowing them to make their own judgment and we don't think it's necessary before this speech is even given to come in with a series of claims.”
Lee Bollinger asked for Ahmadinejad to show some courage and answer the questions that were going to be asked. It doesn’t take a great deal of courage to berate an invited guest in front of a favorable and constituent audience before the man even spoke. I would argue it takes the opposite of courage. A putrid air of totalitarian spirit polluted the auditorium Monday night and I for one as an American and student from a peer institution would have been sickened from it.
By attempting to belittle the head of state, Lee Bollinger only pumped up Ahmadinejad by likening him to “a petty and cruel dictator”, a term that constitutes unopposed power and authoritative leader within a nation. Perhaps if Dr. Bollinger had done his homework he would know that in fact Ahmadinejad's power is quite limited, he was elected in a closely contested election. He might also take note that Ahmadinejad’s popularity in Iran is sinking faster than Dr. Bollinger’s own among residents in Manhattanville (the neighborhood Columbia is attempting to eminently domain) and that Ahmadinejad’s prospects for getting re-elected are not good. Calling Ahmadinejad a dictator is almost a compliment to Ahmadinejad who is no more than another Iranian conservative politician backed by the Ayatollah who touts the position of the people who got him elected. He operates by a democratic mandate he received when he was elected by a large margin in a run-off. What differentiates him from the typical American Politician is that he walked into a room Monday where he faced a hostile, young, fervent audience in which he offered his thoughts and his views in the hope of shedding some light on his position which he knew would not resonate well. The least he could have expected was a fair platform to speak in a country that cherishes freedom of expression. Instead he was assailed by a platform pretreated with potent hostility from President Bollinger.
This may have been the great blessing in disguise for the Iranian leader. Bollinger’s objective was in many ways turned on its head as Ahmadinejad looked calm, collective, and at times even coherent, especially when pointing out the hypocrisy of the United States. It was Ahmadinejad who showed courage to face his many foes in the room. The content of his speech alone proved ludicrous at times and irrational when concerning social issues but much of it was overshadowed by the way he was received. Ahmadinejad responded to Bollinger’s introduction with the right amount of conciseness and conviction when he said through a translator, "I think the text read by the dear gentleman here, more than addressing me, was an insult to information and the knowledge of the audience here, present here. In a university environment we must allow people to speak their mind, to allow everyone to talk so that the truth is eventually revealed by all.” Bollinger warned before the invited guest could speak that to “the illiterate and ignorant, this is dangerous propaganda,” but it can be argued that Dr. Bollinger himself was spewing a propaganda to Americans should be tired of it’s the same rhetoric that is readily available from Dana Perino. I imagine Columbia University has invited guest speakers in the past who share the popular opinion about Iran that Mr. Bollinger could not help but reiterate. I doubt those speakers got such a long and hectoring introduction. To Mr. Bollinger I say let us, ignorant or learned, judge for ourselves and let the invited guest speak without a tainted platform.