Ahmadinejad at Columbia: the Real Scandal

Pick your poison -- and it's not just Ahmadinejad at Columbia University! Faculty at Stanford say the Hoover Institute has no business inviting former Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld as a visitor.

The Board of Regents of the University of California rescinds a speaking invitation to former Harvard President Larry Summers in response to professors at U. Cal Davis who think Summers represents "gender and racial prejudice."

And of course when it comes to Iranian President Ahmadinajad, well, New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver is threatening to withhold public funds from Columbia University in New York for inviting Ahmadinejad to speak during the U.N. General Assembly meetings in New York, while. Senator Mitch McConnell says he cannot understand how a great institution like Columbia, dedicated to the "free exchange of ideas," can invite this 'dictator' [actually he was elected] to engage in, er, a free exchange of ideas!

What's up here? Is this what the shrinking freedom in whose name we supposedly wage the war on terrorism has come to? How high a price will we pay as we are bent by the fear inspired by this endless and winless war? Can it be that our civil society is so fractured that no one on the left or the right understands that the university is and must be the last bastion of open debate in our nation, and that censoring speakers we don't like injures not just free speech but the very meaning of liberal learning and the liberal arts?

The real scandal at Columbia is not the Iranian president's speech but the politicians' all too predictable calls for censorship. The real scandal is that we had to be reminded by the devious and mischievous Ahmadinejad himself that the "university is a center for freedom of speech" -- as he told a bemused Charlie Rose.

I don't much like any one of the three most recent candidates for censorship deemed to be pernicious to the minds of youth and beyond the pale of the free exchange of ideas. But I am appalled by the blinkered bigots on both the right and the left who blather about freedom even as they proclaim the right to determine who should and should not visit and speak on university campuses.

Freedom of speech actually means freedom of speech. It is not just about some one else's right to speak, but about our right to listen. Censorship does not just put a gag in a speaker's mouth, it puts a plug in the listener's ear. Give your enemies their day on campus, Rumsfeld and Ahmadinajad alike: it's not just that democracy will survive it, it's that democracy needs it to survive.

Comments

[Joeseo]

05:38 PM on 09/27/2007

This guy is an expert politician. He posed the question about why the Palistineans have to bear the punishment for the Holocaust. He really cuts to the chase. All the bullroar and propaganda and falsehoods will never stop.
The truth hurts.

This guy is better than our guy in any debate or comment on any issue. Our guy is a coward and prefers lies and liars to smear the other guy.

[wolf1619]

03:29 PM on 09/27/2007

Regarding the gay issue in Iran, I posted this comment elsewhere.

Apparently the statement by Ahmadinejad was not translated properly.
There is an interesting article on the topic by Anthropologist Bill Beeman at this link

http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=3a90d68c4ee619b83cd450f0661f0343

Beeman doesn't mention it on his article, but presumably, outside the young, more Westernized or upperclass members of Iranian society, willing "passive" partners have also been assumed to be transexuals, for whom sex change operations are performed, apparently free.

[prochange]

07:32 PM on 09/27/2007

Thank you so much for the link to this article. I was thinking all the time that there must be some cultural difference in looking at homosexuality and that the remark of Ahmadinejad referred to that.

I have lived in different countries and I found that homosexuality is looked at differently depending where people live. Sometimes differences are very small and sometimes they are enormous.

Of course it also depends on education and social standing how people react to homosexuality.

[DasBoot]

08:40 PM on 09/27/2007

I think prochange and wolf1619 are giving the Iranian president way too much credit. He did not say that same sex relations are treated differenctly in Iran. He said there are no people in his country who are "playing with the same sex." This is patently untrue, as the linked article states.

[bethinCary]

03:03 PM on 09/27/2007

Moveon is protected by the Constitution giving Freedom of Speech to all its' citizens.
Just becaseu the GOP did not like what Moveon had to say-is no reason for censure.
Both Reid and Pelosi never should have allowed it to go to the floor because it was unconstitutional to censure. Was, is and forever will be.
Bollinger should be fired. he is a President of a University for higher learning. Learning means talking to those cultures we do not know-and maybe don't agree with.
Bollingers' rude,ungracious, and disrespectful tirade against the Pres. of Iran was propaganda meant to quiet and discredit him.
Interest groups,faculty, politics, religious groups should not be able to influence the quest for higher learning.
That is what it is-propagandizing.

[pirea]

07:26 PM on 09/27/2007

Actually Bollinger's tirade when presenting Ahmadinejad, has reminded me of those stalinist type of blaming the enemy discourses. Are we now on that road?

[ohismith]

01:57 PM on 09/27/2007

The author is incorrect in asserting that the War on Terror is being fought to preserve the Freedom of Speech.
The War on Terror is being fought to preserve our "way of life", by which the War Supporters mean our standard of living. War Supporters are most often seen trying to shut down freedom of speech, along with our other freedoms listed in the Bill of Rights. MoveOn.org NYT ad is the latest example; no less than the USCongress has condemned this speech.

[nooneatall]

01:37 PM on 09/27/2007

People seem to be confused here. Free speech is not the same as unchalleged speech. Nothing says anyone can't deny the Holocaust, but, having made such blatantly idiotic assertions, the rest of us have the right to call such statements what they are. If you want to ask questions, you become resposible for providing some evidence of your assertion, the same way that the Holocaust and its numbers have been proven time and again. (The "6 million" number came from the Nazis' own records, by the way - check the Nuremberg trial record. Among other sources, Adolf Eichmann was on record as quoting the total number killed at 6 millon).
Whether it's Ahmadinejad's silly statements, Bush's silly statements, or anyone else's, the only thing that denies free speech is denying one the right to speak at all. It is not only the right, but the obligation of valuing free speech to provide challenging views.

[Mutex]

02:32 PM on 09/27/2007

Who are 'the rest of us'? Whenever I hear anyone presuming to speak for a large group of people I am automatically suspect of their agenda.

I also find assertions like saying that the number of Jews killed is documented as 'exactly' 6 million very suspect. The truth is seldom that simple. Break down the number for me. How many Jews were there in German occupied areas before the war and how many were there at the end of the war? How many died of natural causes? How many fled to other countries? How many men vs. women and children were killed? How were they killed and under what circumstances? How many were killed at each particular location?

Wouldn't you agree that these are all intellectully valid questions if you are interested in the truth of this magical number?

I have no stake in proving the number right or wrong. To me if Hitler intentionally killed one person (Jew or not) that makes him evil. My problem is an agenda that says we must believe all aspects of the 'holocaust' as truth based on some sort of faith and that this then transfers some sort of entitlement to the Jews. As Ahmadinejad said, what does the holocaust have to do with the justness of the plight of the Palestinians?

In whose interests is it to ridicule (let alone try to thwart) freedom of speech and intellectual curiosity? These people have an agenda and it isn't the truth.

[mommamia526]

08:53 PM on 09/27/2007

Oh, dear, yet another uninformed person who needs to put in his five cents. You just simply take the number of jews before the war IN GERMANY and then subtract the number of jews IN GERMANY that were left, do you? Well, the jews who were exterminated in the German, Polish and other camps, did NOT COME ONLY FROM GERMANY. They were transported to the camps from all over Europe. And with some stops along the way. In The Netherlands, for example, we had Westerbork, and Hooghalen Oost, a.o., from whence they were transported to Auschwitz and other *final destinations*. Your *questions* are not valid, let alone *intellectually valid*. That said, we would all have been better off if Mr. Ahmadinejad could have met a courteous and informed President who knew how to lead an inquiry and dialogue with Mr. Ahmadinejad. The problem is not a new one. Freedom of Speech has been problematic. That is not, because people are not allowed to speak, but the American public, which does not speak or read foreign languages, has long been indoctrinated with all sorts of ideas which are the truth to their leadership and thus to them. And be not deceived, they really did believe all that; the intent was not to deceive. It was just a matter of lack of knowledge and information. The subject of this specific blog is true Freedom of Speech, and that that is not obtained by stiffling discourse and cutting people off from the onset. The *jews* were not mentioned in this blog.

[joebhed]

07:30 PM on 09/27/2007

I agree that someone is confused here.
The criticism that is offered in this post is aimed at those who both tried to prevent Ahmad from speaking, with threats of consequences financial and academic, and those who now want to exact a precious penalty for letting it happen.
These are clearly actions aimed against free speech. They are anti-free speech.
They are meant to intimidate against it happening again, whether at Columbia or elsewhere.
What university will consider bringing him back for an encore performance?
And I believe it was exactly that intimidation that drew the Chancellor's insulting remarks to the level at which they were aired.
This has nothing to do with challenging Ahmad's position on the holocaust.
That SHOULD happen.
Just like challenging the US position that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons SHOULD happen.
That is what open dialogue and free speech are all about.
We need more dialogue in this country and at least Ahmad made a few more people think about some things than what our mainstream media have done over the last 6 years.
Ahmad, and his wild notions, will soon be gone. Iran will persevere.
We need to have a more open dialogue with Iran on an ongoing basis. Ahmad is only the current act. He is not Iran.

[Mutex]

01:03 PM on 09/27/2007

Would someone please explain to me why everyone on the planet is required to acknowledge the Holocaust? I honestly don't understand. Are there other events that we are all required to acknowledge that I'm unaware of?

Personally, I find it difficult to deny that some number of Jews were killed in Nazi concentration camps but what is so magical about the number '6 million'? What if 'only' 1 million were killed? Does it make me a heretic to even ask these questions?

It is not only free speech that is under attack these days but free thoughts and even intellectual curiosity!

[brooklyncitizen]

03:56 PM on 09/27/2007

Anti-semite.(some would say)

This is all too logical a request. There were many Christians that were killed by Hitler, many handicapped and infirmed people (it was a cleansing on every level),and even many Germans. The Holocaust has conveniently been manipulated to justify an often disingenuous political agenda.

Regarding the post,I agree with the absurdity of those that oppose the Iranian President A. speaking at Columbia. I wonder if any of them are aware of how other nations oppose Bush's presence when he does travel to a foreign country. I wonder how many AMericans are aware of how truly objectionable and hated Bush is in the eyes of the world,east and west, third world and developing world alike.

When I travelled to India last year I happenned to be there when Bush went to discuss Nukes with India's PM. Indians are moderate and conservative but they were out in DROVES protesting Bush's presence.

THe bottomline is that Bush not only SAYS stupid things he DOES stupid things:like invading a sovereign nation and causing the death of over 700,000 Iraquis, killing and wounding over 20,000 troops and sending a region into complete and utter chao$ and instability for profit.

And Americans cry about some comment regarding the Holocaust? Oy ve.

[mommamia526]

09:23 PM on 09/27/2007

Well, I for one, would not say antisemite. I would say uninformed. And you are right, there were European men rounded up to work in German factories. Gypsies were also exterminated. And, yes, the infirm and handicapped were also targets. I remember well reading in *Volk and Vaderland*, a Dutch nazi *newspaper*, which was forcibly pushed inside our home, every now and then, accompanied with threats, speaking about extermination of the infirm and handicapped and *sterilisation* of them as well. I was six. It made a big *impression* on me, as we canned food, and *sterilized* that canned food. The Holocaust is not an issue about jews only, you are right. And speaking out about it is NOT for the sake of the jews. There were Holocausts before that, yes, a.o. in Turkey, and no one spoke out, and no one kept speaking about it. And there are Holocausts today, Darfur, for example. That is the reason we MUST keep speaking about it. To prevent it from happening again, if we can, to anyone. Hitler's objective was to create a superior GERMAN RACE. That is why the Holocaust is important. It is not a jewish issue, even though most of the victims were jews. It is RACISM, and MURDER, ethnical cleansing. THAT is the issue. Today we have MURDER going on, and we have ethnic cleansing going on. We must all speak up and out against it. DARFUR, and anywhere else it occurs. Even islamic insurgents murdering each other; that too is antisemitism, from one Arab against another Arab. As jews we speak of the Holocaust, because it happened to us, it is our personal experience, and one writes and speaks best about that which we know personally. It is also our task to learn and to teach. No more profound way to learn than from personal experience, or to teach what you know personally.

[seawolf77]

01:02 PM on 09/27/2007

It's not that there are no homosexuals in Iran, it's that they are not in the open like they are here. In the America I grew up in we all knew they were there, but we left them alone and went about our business. In America today we all know they are here becasue they are constantly being shoved down our societal throats. Which is better? You tell me. I mean ask them even. Sure getting health benefits would never have happened, but really is it better today for them. Or for blacks and latinos. Has all this just been a bunch of BS?

[mommamia526]

09:27 PM on 09/27/2007

This was not about homosexuals. Everyone who works with an employer who has an agreement with a health insurance company gets the same benefits. Today women in convential marriages all work too, and have their own coverage. With Universal Healthcare the healthcare issue for homosexuals will be off the table.

[Fairfloss]

12:38 PM on 09/27/2007

Good piece and I agree, freedom of speech is important, but so is the freedom to "hear."

I do have one question I would like to "run-pass" you. Do you think the audience could have been, for lack of a better word, "spiked," with enough pro-Ahmadinejad supporters to make him feel comfortable and allow him a Hugo Chavez moment?

The homosexual question changed the whole complexion of the "open exchange of ideas," because we all know why there are no homosexuals in Iran.

[mommamia526]

09:05 PM on 09/27/2007

I believe that the audience was *spiked*; it was specifically selected to be present, but I do not think with pro Ahmadinejad supporters. The issue with Ahmadinejad is NOT homosexuals, or even the Holocaust. It is not even Ahmadinejad, or the Iranian public. It is the regime Mr. Ahmadinejad represents. It is the *denial* factor, which can not be suppressed. Denial of nuclear research to make a bomb. Denial of the Holocaust. Denial that there exist homosexuals in Iran. And all that ties to his various pronouncements and activities and involvements, or rather of the Iranian clergy he represents, that, if not really a clear danger, appears to be a real danger in any case, and just invokes action if certain parties become concerned enough that Ahmadinejad will put his money where his mouth is. In fact, he has already put his money into insurgency in Iraq, into Hamas (an ofshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood) and Hizbullah. Those are FACTS on the ground, and FACTS certain parties may be inclined they have a right to act upon to knick further excursions of Ahmadinejad in the bud. It is a dangerous game. The Middle East should be wary of this little man with his big plans. And then he addressed the UN and practically told them he wipes his boots on their declarations. That is a lot of nations, which just might not like that too much.

[mae692]

10:43 PM on 09/27/2007

I listened to the speech, not the commentary, and he didn't sound much different from all the other lying politician and I think he's less dangerous than some I could name (based on actions, not words).

As for the homosexual issue, isn't it possible that's a cultural thing? He comes from a culture were there's no gay bars, now gay pride parades, not domestic partnership, no gay marriage. Maybe that's what he was referring to when he said "we don't have homosexuals like you do here." His opinion of gays isn't much different than Larry Craig's.
As for the other issues you mentioned, what world leader wouldn't do the same things he's doing? We (and Israel) have nuclear weapons, we funding Iraq in it's long war against Iran, we installed the Shah and his secret police in Iran.