Of course, it was disgraceful that an institution like Columbia would invite the monstrous head of a monstrous regime to speak in the US, but it was also an affirmation of the freedom that we have in America.
Columbia President Bollinger summed up Columbia's position:
"....I would also like to invoke a major theme in the development of freedom of speech as a central value in our society. It should never be thought that merely to listen toideas we deplore in any way implies our endorsement of those ideas, or the weakness of our resolve to resist those ideas, or our naiveté about the very real dangers inherent in such ideas. It is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open the public forum to their voices. To hold otherwise would make vigorous debate impossible.
"That such a forum could not take place on a university campus in Iran today sharpens the point of what we do here. To commit oneself to a life—and a civil society—prepared to examine critically all ideas arises from a deep faith in the myriad benefits of a long-term process of meeting bad beliefs with better beliefs and hateful words with wiser words. That faith in freedom has always been and remains today our nation's most potent weapon against repressive regimes everywhere in the world. This is America at its best." (via Powerline)
That sounds good, at least until one questions whether a friend of the United States would be accorded such an invitation and be able to appear and speak without interruption. But I digress.
Scott Johnson at Powerline countered with this:
"...Columbia and President Bollinger are a disgrace. They welcome to their campus a man who is a ringleader in the seizure of American hostages, a terrorist, the president of a terrorist regime, and the representative of a regime responsible at present for the deaths of American soldiers on the field of battle. Columbia's prattle about free speech may be a tale told by an idiot, but it signifies something. And President Bollinger is a fool who is not excused from the dishonor he brings to his institution and his fellow citizens by the fact that he doesn't know what he is doing."
So the issue was joined, Ahmadinejad appeared, Bollinger scolded him, and the only result was a propaganda event for Ahmadinejad with the play on it back in Iran. Little harm, no foul?
Peggy Noonan had something good to say about it all:
"....Is it necessary to say when one speaks of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that you disapprove of him, disagree with him, believe him a wicked fellow and are not amused that he means to have missiles aimed at us and our friends? If it is, I am happy to say it. Who, really, isn't?
But this has been our history: to let all speak and to fear no one. That's a good history to continue. The Council on Foreign Relations was right to invite him to speak last year--that is the council's job, to hear, listen and parse--and Columbia University was well within its rights to let him speak this year. Though, in what is now apparently Columbia tradition, the stage was once again stormed, but this time verbally, and by a university president whose aggression seemed sharpened by fear.
"There were two revealing moments in Ahmadinejad's appearance. The first is that in his litany of complaint against the United States he seemed not to remember the taking and abuse of American diplomatic hostages in 1979. An odd thing to forget since he is said to have been part of that operation. The second was the moment when he seemed to assert that his nation does not have homosexuals. This won derisive laughter, and might have been a learning moment for him; dictators don't face derisive from crowds back home.
"It was like the moment in 1960 when Khrushchev's motorcade stalled on Third Avenue and a commuter walked by and gave him the finger. Actually I don't know there was such a moment, but knowing Americans I'm sure there was. Talking and listening to the wicked is the way we always operated in the long freak show that was 20th-century world leadership. And I'm sure before...."
A quite reasonable approach, I would say. So what we have are varying positions on the invitation and appearance, all of which are right from the perspective of it's author. And how about the subject matter of the issue? Well, he had a perspective, too, from the Islamic Republic News Agency:
".....Referring to his speech at Columbia University, President Ahmadinejad said, "The Zionists wanted to turn the event into a trial of the Isalmic[sic] Republic of Iran, but with help from the Almighty God, the plot turned into a scene in which nations could express their hatred with the rulers in the White House."
"The behavior of the government and media in the US shows that there is dictatorship in that country and people are not allowed to know the facts," said the president.
"The Iranian nation are not afraid of listening to others and believe that the whole world accepts the strong logic of the revolution and the Islamic regime," the president concluded. "
So much for the appearance being an enlightening moment for any involved. About the only thing the appearance accomplished was to give Columbia an opportunity to bask in the light of "academic freedom" and free speech; Ahmadinejad to poke a finger in Uncle Sam's eye; and all the writers and bloggers to opine about their perspectives. Dare one say that there might have been a lot of smoke, but little fire? Sounds about right.
Where does all of this leave us? I think back at the college campus(s). Clearly, Columbia, like most universities in the United States, is not friendly to centrist or right of center thinking. There is no true freedom of speech on most campuses. Instead, we have only leftist and anti-American speech. All other is not "politically correct", and therefore not permitted. We have seen that across the board: when those kinds of speakers appear on campus, they are shouted down, and not accorded the atmosphere that Ahmadinejad enjoyed. Free debate only occurs among leftists. Surely, nobody would expect, say, Donald Rumsfeld, to be accorded the same courtesies at Columbia that the monster, Ahmadinejad, was accorded. Or, for that matter, William F. Buckley, or Lawrence Summers, or our own President to name a few others.
Michael Barone has an excellent article on the campus culture that permits this sort of conduct entitled "Ivory Tower Decay." Of the Columbia/Ahmadinejad encounter, he says of the campus culture:
".....This regnant campus culture helps to explain why Columbia University, which bars ROTC from campus on the ground that the military bars open homosexuals from service, welcomed Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose government publicly executes homosexuals...."
After mentioning the absurd invitation of Hofstra Law School to Lynn Stewart, convicted and sentenced to prison for aiding terrorists, so she could participate, as a lecturer, in a conference on legal ethics(!), Barone concludes:
"....What it doesn't explain is why the rest of society is willing to support such institutions by paying huge tuitions, providing tax exemptions and making generous gifts. Suppression of campus speech has been admirably documented by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. The promotion of bogus scholarship and idea-free propagandizing has been admirably documented by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. It's too bad the rest of America is not paying more attention."
Barone raises the real question at the heart of this tempest. Why do we continue to support the one sided and exclusive leftist viewpoints to be the only ones heard on our college campuses?
Perhaps it is time to take a look at how leadership on the campuses could be improved so they would once again be places of free and unimpeded discourse. Public universities should be accountable to the public. Maybe the governing boards should be for more than show and money raising, and start taking strong positions on such things as free speech and real academic freedom.
Don't hold your breath until it happens.
