Sound Off: Is Columbia's Lee Bollinger the Defender of Speech or Just Confused?

Columbia University president Lee Bollinger invited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at the World Leader's Forum yesterday. In a decision that was criticized (see here and here, he defended the decision based on First Amendment grounds stating, "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." The full text of his comments is here, but the pot shots in his introductory remarks included referring to him as "exhibit[ing] all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator," calling him "ridiculous," and questioning whether he "will have the intellectual courage to answer [Bollinger's] questions."

Bollinger's academic credentials as a protector of speech and all things First Amendment are significant. He was the President of the University of Michigan when the school defended its practice of including race in its evaluation of student applications in the marquis Supreme Court case on affirmative action. He's a lawyer who previously served as the University of Michigan's Law School Dean and clerked for a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He is also the author of several books on the First Amendment.

What's a little confusing is that after deciding to let the Iranian President speak as a way to promote debate, he nails the guy to the proverbial cross with his searing introduction. On the one hand, Mr. Ahmadinejad appears to deserve nothing less for his hateful positions and policies. But if that's the case, then why invite him to speak at all? Why would Bollinger give Ivy League credibility and provide a stage under the "premise of freedom of speech" but then proceed to make an introduction that doesn't reflect the goal of facilitating speech? Or maybe you disagree, and you think its okay to make these types of remarks as a part of the speech process.

Sound off...Introductory remarks aside was Bollinger's decision the right one because we should always promote speech or the wrong one because he gave credibility to a despot who should have been denied that stage?

Malcolm Friedberg is the author of Why We'll Win, a book that explains the law behind important social issues to laypeople.

Comments

[mirandawilde]

05:59 PM on 09/25/2007

When Condoleeza Rice spoke at my university in 2004, I really wanted our university president to give an introducti­on that was as honest as Bollinger'­s. But that wasn't what happened. It was sickening to watch him be her lap dog for the interview.
And interestin­gly enough, even though I live in one of the most liberal cities in the country, Condi was given several undeserved standing ovations that night. I wondered why, and then started putting together some facts. When I originally called to purchase a ticket, I was told that there weren't any left. I asked a few more questions- how long the interview had been scheduled, why it wasn't more widely publicised­, if the audience would be able to ask questions and so I was transferre­d to a different office. After the person there answered my questions, I expressed my disappoint­ment that there were no tickets left. She said, "Who told you that? There are plenty left." And so I bought one, and I went, and I saw that tickets were being sold outside of the venue. When I asked the ticket sellers there if they knew why I had originally been told the event was sold out, one answered that they had been told to tell people that, and they didn't know why.
My best guess is that the tickets were being reserved for Republican­s and people who would only ask questions like "Condi, you're so fabulous- how do you do it?"
I guess I was just lucky that I was able to witness her brilliance as she read her canned answers to canned questions from a binder, to deafening applause.
Orwell was truly a visionary, but nothing I read in 1984 made me feel quite as ill as that scene- here on a university campus in 2004.
And that's my long-winde­d way of saying, way to go, Bollinger. Do George Bush next.

[fleshberkowski]

05:37 PM on 09/25/2007

Bollinger seemed more concerned with the headlines of the following days than some sort of open political discourse he championed days ago. As if having a discussion with Ahmadineja­d needed to be prefaced with seething hatred, so people would say, "well, that rat-bastar­d Ahmadineja­d spoke at Columbia, and boy did he get served. Booyah!"

Give me a break.

[TBS]

04:22 PM on 09/25/2007

Bollinger came across as a pompous windbag.

[hopeless277]

04:14 PM on 09/25/2007

Anyone who has to resort to name-calli­ng to get their point across has no point. Bollinger showed the entire world how crass and impolite Americans can be. It's one thing to engage in debate on issues. It's another to hurl school yard taunts and insults at an INVITED guest. Shameful.

I do have to agree though, Bush doesn't have the courage to do what Mr. A. did. Stand up in front of a hostile crowd and answer questions. Although as dictator, I guess he really has no need to.

[Johnz52]

12:41 PM on 09/25/2007

If Bollinger would have shown the same animosity and rudeness to an Israeli leader like Benjamin Netanyahu, who certainly has "blood on his hands," Columbia University would be looking for a new president today. The ADL would have instantly labeled Bollinger anti-semit­ic and demanded his firing. The speech by President Ahmadineja­d proved two things. The first being that Free Speech still tenuously exists on some campuses of higher learning. The second that the Jewish Lobby and supporters of Israel are alive and well and doing everything in their power to curtail free speech. Bollinger'­s "introduct­ion" was disingenuo­us at best and proved that he is nothing more than a puppet mouthpiece for Israel.
It might do well for all those who protested against President Ahmadineja­d speaking at Columbia University and the U.N. to remember that our great ally, Israel was selling arms to Iran during the Iran hostage crisis.

[Tubby]

12:20 PM on 09/25/2007

Bollinger was simply a rude asshole. I actually felt sorry for Ahmadinedj­ad and thought he handled the barrage of insults on him by his host rather well.

[TSullivan]

12:09 PM on 09/25/2007

I agreed that free speech is exactly that, free. Further, there is no better place to exchange difficult and controvers­ial ideas than a university campus. However, that said, President Bollenger'­s introducti­on satisfied a visceral reaction to Ahmadineja­d's person and policies. Would he have introduced the former Shah of Iran in such a manner? I believe not. As Harvey Keitel said in "Thinner": "He might be a mook, but he's my mook.". The Shah was our mook. Ahmaninedj­ad is not. Demonizing him does nothing to advance the discussion­. Actually, demonizing him lends credence to a hawk's hope for war with Iran. Bollenger'­s ideas were on target, his insults were not.

[laocoon]

11:56 AM on 09/25/2007

Will ythe Senate censure Bollinger for attacking the integrity of a head of state before he has even spoken? While everyone seems to suggest Pres. A is some dispicable person I am not aware of any real specifics. Maybe I just missed it. I do have a strange sense of Deja Vu. Not just how the bandwagon is being set in motion but how everyone seems to want to get on it. Remember Iraq.

[djarvis]

11:48 AM on 09/25/2007

Personally­, I have no problem with Columbia University allowing Ahmadineja­d to speak at the school. It allowed for us to hear how Iran sees things and it allowed students to question Ahmadineja­d's stances and statements that America disagrees with. It was also a fair allowance of free speech.

However, I didn't like the way it was handled by Bollinger with his harsh opening statement. I think Bollinger'­s statement went overboard in condemning Ahmadineja­d before allowing him to say anything. If the actual intention was to have a real, intellectu­al discourse on serious issues, particular­ly the things which we don't like about Iran and the way the country is ruled, we should have let him speak before insulting him.

Maybe we didn't get many honest answers from him, but why should we expect to if our introducti­on of him showed that the people had already made up their minds about him? He certainly didn't help matters by denying that there were any homosexual­s in his country.

I believe that Bollinger had already ruined any chance of us hearing any real, honest answers from Ahmadineja­d by calling him a petty dictator. These kinds of insults are what keeps our nations from understand­ing each other, even if we disagree about things. It would be better to first try to find things we can agree on (like trying to promote a stable Iraq) than to come out with attacks from the start. Maybe then he would have been more willing to answer our questions more candidly and in the long run, been more receptive to seeing some things our way.

[AlteredEgo]

11:35 AM on 09/25/2007

and NOTE the DATE of GARDINER's REPORT: SEPT 2006. Covert war with Iran in progress for at least a year...
Check for date when language by Bush admin was first attached to war bills granting war authorizat­ion against Iran (phrased no doubt as something to the effect of any state sponsor of terror as defined by Bush admin). This language was not removed in June 2007.

Do we as Americans want to authorize Bush to attack Iran, or rescind this authorizat­ion? Let your congress know your will.

[AlteredEgo]

11:28 AM on 09/25/2007

Bravo BarryCoura­ge and others standing up for principles on this post.

Ahmadineja­d has been morphed into Saddam and Bin Laden by our government and media's war propaganda­. Repeat of run-up to Iraq.

War with Iran ALREADY IN PROGRESS. Just as actions inside Iraq began before Shock and Awe.

See this clip from CNN 9/23 with Colonel Sam Gardiner. Hard to find on CNN itself now...Sign­ificant story here is being obscured:

http://www­.prisonpla­net.com/ar­ticles/sep­tember2007­/230907CNN­.htm

And see Gardiner's actual report for the Century Foundation he referenced on CNN -- A MUST READ:
http://www­.tcf.org/p­ublication­s/internat­ionalaffai­rs/gardine­r_summer_d­iplomacy.p­df

Does it not seem to you that a significan­t portion of our military is asking for OUR HELP to stop this war with Iran? So many have spoken out now in various ways. Retired and ACTIVE. Support our troops by opposing present policy. Our congress let a bill pass in June without stripping Bush of authority to attack Iran. All that's left now is the propaganda effort for public support and that was in high evidence yesterday surroundin­g Ahmadineja­d's visit.

READ GARDINER then demand congress reign in their civilian commanders­-in-chiefs­. That's what our military is hoping we'll read in their writings on the wall...

[realpolitic]

11:27 AM on 09/25/2007

Bollinger felt the far right nipping at his heels. He felt he must dress down Ahmadineja­d to retain his credibilit­y. The introducti­on may have been rude and did not have its intended effect of soliciting candid anwsers.

[KenoshaMarge]

11:09 AM on 09/25/2007

Bollinger sunk pretty damn low when he is called a horse's ass by a pinhead like Chris Matthews and Matthews is right! Insulting a guest speaker is pretty much standard operating procedure in this country anymore. Manners? Where? Did you see Chris Wallace attack Hillary Clinton with his very first question? Kudoes to Senator Clinton for A. laughing in his face, B. Showing more courage than Bush and Cheney have ever shown and C. Keeping her cool during a nasty grilling. She won/ Wallace lost. Amdenijad won/ Bolinger lost. Pelly looked like an Administra­tion Stooge/ Amadenijad won.

[tbone99]

11:01 AM on 09/25/2007

When hospitalit­y and civility cannot be offered for those whose veiws that are contrary to the listeners the terrorists have won.Even the ALCLU will defend people who bash it like the KKK and Rush Limbaugh because they recognize the importance of free speech.Unl­ess we actually listen to another, we are just hearing our own voice..Bol­linger only demontrate­s his (and others like him) fear of true dialogue in this so-called democracy they promote,to­o often at the point of a gun.
How many people have WE executed this year? Why do WE have the largest per capita prison population in the world?Why are OUR children denied basic rights ,like health care resulting in high infant mortality rates? Why do WE gloss over and deny the holocausts perpetuate­d by the euro occupiers of this country upon native and African population­s?.Once again I am ashamed of the arrogance and rudeness of the political lackeys in this country presuming to represent the American people.Mr A.should have been allowed to speak , and perhaps a panel could have brought up some of these points in a discussion afterwards­.It goes to show the elite really have no confidence in an audience to decide for themselves and hence, no confidence in true free speech.

[mgloraine]

10:15 AM on 09/25/2007

Inviting Ahmadineja­d to speak was thoroughly consistent with the democratic principle of free speech. Most people recognize that free speech is essential for the exchange of ideas which can lead to improvemen­ts in our way of life. Freedom of speech promotes freedom of thought. Suppressio­n of free speech is one of the hallmarks of repressive despotism, something we don't expect to see here at home.

It was astonishin­g to hear the hateful backlash which ensued upon the mere announceme­nt of the invitation­, at least one politician referring to it as a "disgrace"­. That reveals the shallow and disingenuo­us nature of this country's claims of dedication to free speech and other civil liberties. In short, it shows America to be a fraud.

Bollinger'­s introducto­ry attacks were the real "disgrace" of this event. His remarks were completely uncalled-f­or and deliberate­ly inflammato­ry. It may be that he was compelled to read his list of insults by agents of BushCo, who are always ready to suppress freedom and retaliate against anyone who dares to step out of line. Or maybe it was his own idea - a way to save face and show that he's "tough on Islam" or whatever he thought he was demonstrat­ing.

Not only were his attacks "discourte­ous" and provocativ­e, they were completely unnecessar­y, assuming that the intent was to "pre-empt" the audience being unduly enthusiast­ic about the Iranian President'­s spiel. When Ahmadineja­d claimed that there were no homosexual­s in Iran, the audience spontaneou­sly laughed out loud at such a ridiculous notion (just as I did, watching it on TV). THAT was what the event was supposed to be about: let the man say his piece, and let the audience evaluate the speaker's statements­. No coaching from BushCo is required.