For the past several years, it seems to me that Americans have been forced to follow an insane "cowboy diplomacy" style of relating to other nations, particularly those in the strategic Middle East ~ thanks, in large part, to Bush Jr.
Columbia University administrators are a great deal smarter than Bush. In fact, one can't even compare the difference ... it's vast. They're not missing a key opportunity to talk with a controversial polt. leader, for the benefit of its student body & faculty.
And guess what? There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Anyone who claims otherwise is a fool, IMHO.
Such bold steps may actually prove to bring us forward in the way we dialogue (eg., not threats of military action & war, etc.) our wishes and goals with other nations (eg., our world 'neighbors').
Americans certainly aren't required to agree with Iranian politics ~ or the prominent role that Islamic religion plays in its rules/structure ~ in order to benefit from such talks.
And just possibly, such types of invited dialogue could prove to be an effective way of changing our own insane & poor international relation's course that Bush Jr. has forced us on shortly after taking office.
KELLI
Ahmadinejad's Visit: The Entire Campus was the Classroom
One story that hasn't come out of the coverage of President Ahmadinejad's coming to Columbia is that of the students. Before the speech, hundreds of Columbians swarmed around the podium on the famous Low Steps of the Morningside Heights campus in the shadow of Alma Mater. Electric energy coursed through the small neoclassical quad, surrounded on the outside by hundreds trying to gain access to the highly secured area.
The fact that the majority of the university was conscious before noon on a Monday was remarkable enough, but the conduct and energy of student participants and listeners stood as an incontrovertible rebuttal to those who doubted the academic and cultural purpose of the president's visit. The students' forum was structured such that any interested student group was allotted a short time to speak to the Columbia community, outline their thoughts on the event and take a position on the invitation and the president. Some groups took a very aggressive tack, shouting at the crowd, raw anger exposed. Others calmly delivered their carefully reasoned argument for endorsing the university's decision to invite Ahmadinejad while firmly outlining their opposition to him and his regime. All were met with a polite crowd, but the feeling of urgency and gravity dominated.
Creative teachers turn to debate-oriented teaching styles, holding that students retain the most information and are most drawn into material when they are forced to come to a position, defend it, and take part in a partially adversarial dialog. September 24 was the largest class ever held at Columbia, and the entire campus was the classroom. Nuances of Kantian ethics and Weberian theories can fall into the dusty attics of a Columbian's memory, but the issues brought up by the event, Presidents Bollinger and Ahmadinejad, and the student responders will not be soon forgotten. The academic and political value extracted by the denizens of Columbia's campus was on display all around today. Sitting on a main lawn, you would hear behind you a medical student rehearse anatomy interspersed with incredulous references to Ahmadinejad's denial of the existence of homosexuality in Iran. Engineers talked with each other outside their building about the implications of the resident's acceptance of Bollinger's proposal to lead a delegation to Iran and dialogue with university and faculty in the country. Students across campus imagined what they would say if they were part of the student delegation, what they would want to convey, advise, and help change.
There's a cautionary tale in some of this activism, however. Identity politics actuated the responses of many of the groups and protesters during the student responses to Ahmadinejad's coming. Engagement is one of the top issues facing young adult politics in the U.S., but resolving it by mobilizing narrow ethnic and identity-bound positions leads to a politics in which only particular groups care about each issue, and concern for overarching national goals falls away. Rejection of this approach dominated Columbia's response to Ahmadinejad's visit. Posters proclaimed the Iranian regime's crimes were not just a "Jewish, Woman, Gay, Security...issue." This recognition of the dangers of segregating politics and tying engagement to identity speaks volumes on the promise of the political consciousness of the generation on deck.
President Bollinger pointed out that the event was not about Ahmadinejad's rights. It was to further the aims and objectives of the university, and mainly for the benefit of faculty and student. A look around this hot September afternoon at the hundreds of college students across all academic fields thinking, and conversing on one topic makes clear the event more than succeeded in its primary purpose.
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
As soon as religion enters politics, all logic is out the window. Israel and/or Iran suffer from the same problem - there cannot be democracy where there is a "state religion."
The question of free speech in our society remains important. This is the foundation of our democracy. The market place of ideas should be the judge of the content of the President of Iran's communication.
The President in Iran holds a position which is far less powerful than that of our own Vice President.
Somehow, I don't really believe that Ahmedinejad is that "dangerous" - wouldn't he be on a no-fly list if he were? Unless Iran represents a clear and present threat to our security, then no attack should be made.
I would challenge our leaders to open discussions on their policies (and the blatant cronyism) to public debate, especially where all the public funds are being spent for their endless war machine and war-mongering agenda.
Religion is found through out the world; and so is a governmental structure. Both are organizations which promise well-being for it's supporters.
What we all did not know was that we have been lied to our faces. The intrests of a few have been put before evryone else. What was once a place to seek refuge in these organizations; is now a buffet table for our public servats, and religious leaders.
Therefore, I don't believe there is a difference acting out of blind faith for your country, or your religion. We were fooled, used, and stolen from on both accounts.
Look at the quality of this article, and the rest of the media. It is used by them to suit their purposes. To line the coffers, to keep thier guilt at bay.
We all see a humble gesture, and we lash out in ignorance. I think when some one is hell bent on thier convictions; they are scared. scared to be wrong, to have to change the whole existance of hiw they think, to have to feel something, scared to be scolded, to feel obligated to do something, avoiding to have to face the victim in person, to be embarressed in front of your friends, to go to hell.
This is why people act out; meanwhile, we are being stolen from.
What we need is a civil society. But can we get there when these few are using our tools to lie to us, cheat our children from any future, destroy our enviroment, kill all the animals....... And we all thought they were there to help us.
I guess people will not say anothing until it is all gone. Then there is nothing to fight for.
There were two sides in view. One side presented facts and reason, acted politely, and asked that we consider the demands of justice. The speaker asked that we seek truth through inquiry ande research, that we try to settle differences in a civilized manner through talking together and that , respecting human life, we make honorable peace our goal.
The other, whether they actually heard the speaker or not, keeps asserting things contrary to the fact, giving the speasker despicable descriptions, accusing those who quote him accurately of being despicable types, expressing contempt for those who present facts counter to their claims, and -- by the way -- begging for war.
I hear that one side in insane. Can you tell which?
I'm with you. It is almost safe to say, that what ever we hear on television, the opposite is true.
I noticed how the smartest people in the world are the most humble. They understand that there are so many variables, or that we often over think, and let emotion bias our thoughts. It's funny, they make dollar bets on years of reseach; that thier calculations were right.
Now on the other hand, you have politicians, and religious leaders that are so hell bent on convincing you. And they put very little into their story line. Not a knowledge seeking behavior. If I was a priest, I would be in awe; with all thier is to see in this universe. I would not be a know it all, and not with my people either.
Now that our news was deregulated by Regan, we don't even know what's around the corner.
I think that the most significant part about it was that the Presidents -did- show up and did speak. And, they were heard.
It is not necessary for one to agree with everything that was said. You can form whatever opinions you like about a man and about his position(s). But... LET HIM SPEAK.
It was good to see that both of these political leaders, no matter how you feel about them, DID in their turn SPEAK .. and LISTEN.
Right. And the Third Reich was a bloody seminar on alternative life styles.
.
The president of iran set an example that America should follow. Imagine how brave it was for him to come here, and ask for dialog. He represents many people in their country. Iran is a democracy, and has a higher participation by it's people in democracy than our own America.
This article says things like the major benefit of his visit was for it's students to debate, and hold to your convictions. But, that is exactly what is wrong with us. His coming here was for all of America; to prevent a another criminal war by this administration. So, the People of Iran wanted to talk to the People of America. This is a great gesture; where is ours ?
What the teachers should be teaching at this school, is communication, civics. The students should be asking good questions that affect not just themselves, but our country. I am ashamed how you represented the People of my country.
The students should be mad at the quality of education you are getting. If you could put world events into context; but first your schools must teach you something first..
Loading comments…
Posted September 25, 2007 | 11:25 AM (EST)