In a recent post, ("Ahmadinejad and Columbia University," September 26, 2007) I argued that Columbia University did nothing "wrong" in inviting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak. To the contrary, its invitation to this allegedly "cruel and petty dictator" was well within Columbia's fundamental mission as a university, which is not to "endorse" particular ideas as "right" or "wrong," but to promote a robust and lively and sometimes controversial exchange of views in order to promote the ultimate goal of education.
In this post, I want to draw a subtle but perhaps illuminating connection between the response of Columbia to its own decision to invite Mr. Ahmadinejad to campus and the Senate's response to the recent MoveOn.org ad in The New York Times attacking General Petraeus.
Having invited to campus a highly provocative speaker whose views many faculty, students, alumni, and donors find offensive, what is a university to do? In such a situation, the university (and especially its president) is presented with a quandary. On the one hand, the university wants to celebrate its commitment to free speech and to congratulate itself on having the courage to invite such a speaker.
On the other hand, it wants to mollify those who despise the speaker and who accuse the the institution of acting irresponsibly by seeming to dignify his views. No sensible university (or university president) wants faculty, students, alumni, and donors to be angry.
This was the dilemma facing Columbia President Lee Bollinger. Although I have great admiration for Mr. Bollinger for his courage and integrity in many other situations he has faced, including especially his leadership of the University of Michigan on the issue of affirmative action, I fear he mishandled the Ahmadinejad dilemma. It was certainly appropriate for Bollinger to introduce President Ahmadinejad and to take that opportunity, as he did, to explain why it was appropriate for Columbia to invite him.
But then Bollinger went further, and directly attacked Mr. Ahmadinejad, asserting that he is a "petty and cruel dictator" who denies the Holocaust, threatens to destroy Israel, promotes terrorism, and violates human rights. Some critics have criticized Bollinger for doing this because it was inhospitable and rude. But that misses the real objection, which is that Columbia University as an institution cannot legitimately take positions on such issues. Because a university must remain neutral on all matters of public policy that do not directly affect the university itself, it should not have a faculty vote, for example, on whether to condemn the war in Iraq, on whether Mr. Bush is a good president, or on whether Mr. Ahmadinejad violates human rights.
Of course, individual faculty members, students, staff, and alumni may state their own positions on such matters with complete freedom. But the university itself should not take such positions. The responsibility of a university is to facilitate debate and disagreement, not to stifle it by declaring an "official" university position. Whenever a university arrogates to itself the authority to "declare" certain positions to be "true" or "false," it necessarily chills the freedom of its faculty and students to take contrary -- officially disapproved -- positions. This should be anathema to any university.
Lee Bollinger is, of course, a member of the faculty as well as president of Columbia University. In his capacity as a faculty member, or in his capacity as an individual citizen, he is completely free to speak his own mind. But when he formally introduced Mr. Ahmadinejad, he was clearly speaking not as Lee Bollinger the professor or Less Bollinger the citizen, but also as the Lee Bollinger the President of Columbia University. In that capacity, it was entirely inappropriate for him to suggest that Columbia has a party line on these matters. It is easy to see why Bollinger was tempted to do this in order to placate angry donors, alumni, faculty, and students, but he should have resisted the temptation. Columbia University as a university should have no views one way or the other about Mr. Ahmadinejad, period.
This brings me to the flap over MoveOn.org's recent ad about "General Betray Us." The ad suggested that General Petraeus was "cooking the books for the White House" by presenting to the American public and to the Congress a misleading picture of the situation in Iraq. There is absolutely no question but that this statement was fully protected by the First Amendment. As the Supreme Court has often and clearly explained, the First Amendment embodies "a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." The MoveOn.org ad is well within the bounds of this fundamental constitutional protection and well within the long tradition in this nation of challenging our public officials -- military as well as civilian.
Nonetheless, the Senate, with the support of many Democrats, adopted a resolution solely for the purpose of condemning the MoveOn.org ad. The resolution states as its supposed "findings" that General Petraeus was unanimously confirmed by the Senate as Commanding General in Iraq, has a stellar education, has served multiple combat tours in Iraq, has taken "a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," and has "amassed a distinguished record of military service." It then characterizes MoveOn.org as a "liberal activist group" and "strongly condemns" MoveOn.org's ad for "attacking the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces."
Just as it is not the business of Columbia University to declare some views "right" and other views "wrong," it is not the business of the United States Senate to enact resolutions condemning the constitutionally protected expression of private citizens. To be sure, many of us sometimes find the constitutionally protected expression of others offensive. Some of us may despise speech that espouses racial inferiority; some of us may find odious speech calling abortion murder; some of us may dislike the views of presidential candidates on the issue of gay marriage; and some of us may be offended by claims that torture is sometimes moral. In this nation, we are all free as individuals to "condemn" the views with which we disagree, and individual senators, acting in their individual capacities, are similarly free to declare their distaste for certain expression.
But it is not a legitimate role for the Senate of the United States to pass formal resolutions condemning the expression of constitutionally protected views. Do the supporters of this resolution honestly believe that it would be appropriate for the Senate officially to condemn those who question the integrity of Vice President Cheney, or the wisdom of Justice Scalia, or the candor of President Bush? Do they honestly believe that it would be appropriate for the Senate officially to condemn those who support campaign finance reform or greater gun regulation or an invasion of Iran?
Such expression, like MoveOn.org's attack on General Petraeus, is not only protected by the First Amendment, but is essential to the functioning of a self-governing society. For the very same reasons that Columbia University should not declare particular ideas, perspectives, or positions "out of bounds," so too, the United States Senate should foster "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" public debate and not attempt to intimidate citizens by irresponsible public declarations of official condemnation. Such a tactic smacks of the excesses of the McCarthy Era.
Justice Louis Brandeis cautioned us exactly 80 years ago that "the freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth," that "it is hazardous" in a self-governing society for the government "to discourage thought" and free expression, and that "the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones." Individual senators would have been perfectly within their rights to condemn the MoveOn.org ad, just as Mr. Bollinger would have been perfectly within his rights as an individual citizen or faculty member to condemn Mr. Ahmadinejad's policies. But neither President Bollinger nor the members of the Senate acted wisely or properly in conscripting the official voices of Columbia University and the United States Senate to declare a "politically correct" position for their university or their nation.
After 3 weeks of Cornyn and rabid UBER-patriots doing the "Full Petraeus" 8 performance a week with matinees. You aren't going to take away my front row seat for a SMACKDOWN of Limbaugh's "Phony Troops."
next week we'll exercise restaint, and eat what's good for us.
The only one I see deciding what can or cannot be said, what should or should not be said, what is or is not legitimate; the only one I see declaring a "politically correct" position ... is you, Geoffrey R. Stone. YOU are the one who wrote those two lines I quoted at the top of this post. YOU are the one denying someone's right to say what they want to say. Your entire focus is on who has the right to say what they want to say, and declaring that certain organizations do not legitimately share that right.
Where in the Constitution of our great nation is THAT written?
From Lee Bollinger's Introductory Remarks: "It should never be thought that merely to listen to ideas 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's the crux of it. He had every right to say what he said, just as the Senate had every right to say what they said. Mr. Bollinger did not discuss US public policy (which could be a violation of IRS rules) in regards to Iraq or anything else; he detailed, with facts, some of the ways in which the Iraqi gov't operates, expressed his opinion that those methods are repressive, and asked Ahmadinejad 'why do you operate this way?' This was a forum -- an assembly for the discussion of public matters -- not a lecture in the classroom. The Senate resolution did not question the right of MoveOn.org to express their view; it doesn't even say that their view is wrong. The actual text of the resolution reads "specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group Moveon.org" Repudiate. 'To refuse to accept or support' according to Webster's. Refusing to accept what someone says is NOT the same as denying their right to say it.
This is a war based on unauthentic reasons and as such is a violation of International Law
The vote to censure a private organization from putting an ad in a private newspaper is just surreal on so many levels. Is this the first time in history this has ever happened?
A vote to actually oppose the Constitution. Classic.
I believe both Rush Limbaugh and Sen. Larry Craig accepted the help of ACLU when they were under scrutiny.
So amusing, in a real retarded sort of way....
a lot of these people would have to find day-jobs...
P.S./ I have asked Moveon.org to publish the names of all the congressmen who voted against free speech but have not had any response. Where may one find such data?
The Minutemen, to the best of my knowledge, haven't lost their right to exercise free speech, nor has the US Congress formally condemned them by resolution.
Get over yourself, Casey. You're here--with the FULL exercise of FREE SPEECH--but you're whining about being denied. The only "crock" is you. But what should expect of a typical CONservative? The truth? A CONservative wouldn't know the truth if it stood up in front of him and hit him with a baseball bat.
But, not being an American, what do I know of democracy and free speech...
What about the minutemen and the military recruiters????????
Get your facts straight.
Ahmadinejad should be allowed to speak at Columbia and visit the 9-11 site. So should the minutemen.
Moveback.org can publish whatever it wants. No one ever asserted they should not. But you seem to believe that what moveback.org did is entitled to free speech protection and those that oppose it are not entitled to free speech. It is my opinon and I am entitled to state it that No responsible person should call the commander of our forces during war a traitor.
Do you ever try to be consistent?
You are a friggen law professor, yet you don't know what the $hit you are talking about. Are you one who believes the disbarred and convicted felon attorney should speak at an easatern law school about "ethics"?
I think you quit reading before you got to this part. He said that individuals have the right to condemn speech because they have the right to free speech. What Stone is claiming, I think, is that by speaking out, in their roles as representatives of both their states and the university, respectively, they should not offer their opinions. In my mind, they would be taking away other's free speech rights by claiming to speak for them. Both Sessions and Shelby, from Alabama, voted for the condemnation of the Move-On ad, but is that the official view of Alabama, or, for that matter, all Alabamians? No it is not! They can say whatever they want to for themselves, but as representatives they don't have the authority to exercise their private free speech as the opinion of all Alabamians.
And by the way, Bollinger was not merely confronting him on the debates. If that were the case then he wouldn't have called him any names such as "petty" or "cruel" or suggest that he doesn't have the gall to answer any of the questions he was not even asked yet. If Bollinger was trying to make sure that Ahmadinejad was to be candid, then his plan backfired in his face and in our country's.
Like Mr. Stone said, one of the more tragic things going on is with our Senate. When I saw that they had a vote to condemn an ad, I was astonished both because of its stupidity and because of the utter waste of time such a vote is. Of all the important things that our Senate has to get done, was it absolutely necessary that they put together a vote to condemn an ad? Every day I lose more faith in our Congress because of their inability to stand up to the crap constantly thrown in their face. Its as if they don't even care to. I blame it on Reid, who has done nothing since 2006 to bring his party together in realizing the strong identity this part already has in place.
Bollinger was an embarrassment and his intro was crafted by a teenage wannabe.
It was hard to believe he was the head of a University, with no manners and oblivious to the purpose of the invitation to a foreign leader to an open question and answer session. He came off as a fool, petty indeed.
The only scandal (as such) on the whole MOVEON deal was the NYT's charge rate for the ad which they even later admitted was wrong.
As for the rest ... Bollinger screwed up. He was discourteous to a guest. He made us Westerners look even worse to the Middle Eastern folks. Courtesy and protection of visitors is a major deal over there. Another demonstration of cultural insensitivity and disrespect by us.
Par for the course for Americans.
_
We have a mentally challenged President who can't abide the kind of public criticism that our Iranian guest just endured. At public rallies we must talk to each other in free speech zones (sic.) miles from our putative representatives and cannot otherwise assemble peacably to seek redress of grievances from the criminal cabal that now runs the country.
If we cannot publicly condemn the succession of liars that have stolen our treasury and manipulated us into an illegal war how are we not already a fascist autocracy? I yearn for the McCarthy era of my childhood.
Rex
Democrats in power have managed to offend the very people who contribute money and hard work to get Democrats elected, and (the party will soon find out) they aren't winning over any Republicans by acting like the cheapo version of the "opposition" party.
And we are supposed to remain loyal while they spit in our faces in order to play "Republikker light". Not going to happen with me or with anybody else I know who has actively supported the party (until the past week).
Too bad that "centrism" turns out to mean to so many DLC or DNCers that they must compromise with child and combat-vet slimers, liars, thugs, corporate-crony-rewarding thiefs, war profiteerers and the rest of that whole ugly pack that we thought we were fighting against TOGETHER. Turns out it isn't true...those morons in the Democratic party still think that it is possible (maybe even desirable) to split the difference with evil.
I, for one, am not going to be dragged along just because the DLC or DNC thinks that because they are the lesser of two evils, we will HAVE TO vote for them. We don't!
At least Republicans are brazenly arrogant about what they intend to do...their people know what they are voting for. Turns out the Democrats are taking money from the same corporate thugs, but are pretending to be somebody else. Their little mantra about CHANGE turned out to be total baloney except for a handful--eg. the 79 house members who voted against the censure.
I WILL NOT be a party to the deception anymore, so please, Democrats, don't send me any more bogus opinion polls (really pleas for money), take me off your phone lists, and don't bother calling on election day.
we had it coming we are becoming more like that other country that liked to invade other countries in the 30's.
most americans dont have a clue we are imperialists. we actually think we are the good guys giving democracy to the world.
but the iraqis have all that oil. too much to pass up.
now lets get busy and build that pipeline to israel.
First, unless you live an oil-free existence (which I doubt unless you are writing on a hemp computer powered by a windmill) you are living a lifestyle that has been created by your nation’s historical capacity to develop resources that result in an improved quality of life. We have always waged war over commerce—to suggest otherwise is either naïve or ignorant.
Second, what is wrong with being imperialist if it means advancing your national foreign policy objectives? You think the Middle East will just suddenly become a peace-loving island if left alone? Again, you are being either naïve or ignorant—because these people were slaughtering each other for thousands of years before the big, bad Western consumers of oil came along.
You smarties always have loads of criticisms to heap on, but you never have a workable solution. I’m looking forward to a change in leadership for many, many reasons—not the least of which is a failed administration that has really effed things up. But my favorite will be watching all of you try and pick the best of the unqualified to lead us—only to be disappointed that they will also pursue foreign policy objectives centered on financial gain.
And just to make it clear—the “all about oil” argument is full of holes. Consider that for the price of the war we could have bought every drop of oil in Iraq for the next two decades. The reality is that the neocons who are just as naïve as you to an opposite extreme thought they could sleep through this like they did most of their Yale lectures. What a price we pay for the whispy hopes of the ideological extremes.
Hopefully next year we can find a candidate who is a realist that worries about more important shit than a newspaper ad that calls people names.
People like you who simply refuse to accept the oil-greed concept of the War in Iraq are the truly deluded ones. Why did we invade Iraq when this Administration hadn't captured bin Laden in Afghanistan? What does Iraq have in very large amounts that Afghanistan doesn't? (Here's a hint: It's found in the ground and is a very thick viscous black liquid and is refined to produce a variety of products, most notably a liquid that fuels the vast majority of automobiles. Another hint: Three letters--the first is "O", and the last is "L".) Another point is that 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were from SAUDI ARABIA, while ZERO were from Iraq. (However, Saudi Arabia, which is also very rich in that viscous liquid, is ruled by men who are very good friends with a certain family which has a former President and a current President among its number. For some reason, the Saudi leaders, who are as corrupt and undemocratic as Saddam ever was, seem to get a "pass" from the current Administration when it comes to the saber-rattling "defenders of democracy".)
Do you know that it wont?
"these people were slaughtering each other for thousands of years before the big, bad Western consumers of oil came along."
I hear that all the time. It's a wonder there's anyone left over there at all after the thousands of years of slaughtering each other.
I'm with ya on our leadership, but I have little hope that we'll get another Bill Clinton at this juncture.