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

[gingershot]

Bollinger's welcoming remarks to Ahmadinejad were much more a poignant example of an agitated coward kowtowing to his donors than any semblance of free speech protection. Bollinger exposed himself, delicto flagrante, to be the coward who did not have the cajones to speak freely, nothing more than an intimidated puppet

These hatchet jobs on Ahmadinejad by Lee Bollinger and others forming the 2nd tier of defense for the Neocons misses the minor point of WHY WE ARE IN IRAQ AND WHY WE'RE ON THE ROAD TO ASSAULTING IRAN. I know those might appear to be minor points but why not waste a couple frivilous gallons of 'free speech' ink on it, such as:
"The role of Ahmadinejad's visit in breaking the neocon deathgrip these facists have around America's neck"

Perhaps Bollinger could have actually prepared himself for the debate with Ahmadinejad and read a couple of chapters of "The Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy " by Mearsheimer and Walt - a couple of chapters are posted free in today's edition of the NYTimes

Speaking of free speech - "The Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy" is an essential primer to the 'why they hate us' that Israel and the Neocons don't want Americans to know about. It very clearly outlines the PRESENT manipulation of our foreign policy for our coming war on Iran - read it before (or during) our war with Iran begins - talk about exciting and timely! Ha! It's a great read and provides the necessary background for informed American foreign policy debate, IMHO

Free Palestine and we will free ourselves from our illegal war on terror. Of course, that's the big, huge, leviathan, sickening lie - that being what we are actually involved with is our 'War of Terror for Israel' - and THAT is how bought we are

[hoopoe]

brilliant post, gingershot. you've hit the nail squarely on the head...

[RamonBackwards]

A) Bollinger was right to invite to speak
B) Bollinger was wrong to introduce him the way he did, and it made Bollinger look like a childish attention whore

[Pete]

Last I heard, this was a free country. It's pretty scary that the right wing is so up in arms about this. To me, that fact that they simply can't fathom allowing another viewpoint to be expressed, regardless of who expresses it, speaks volumes to their insecurity, paranoia, and general anti-democratic sentiments.
Another observation: Ahmadinedjad is a lunatic, a religious zealot, an extremist. But it's a sad state of affairs when our own president is basically the same type of person. They are both extremists, lunatics, and zealots. The only thing that differentiates them is their flavor of religion.

[WhinyDemocrat]

No, maybe it is the fact we don't like leaders of terrorists nations, who are supplying weapons and funding to the terrorists who are killing our bravest and finest in Iraq speaking at our institutions of learning.

Cheese and crackers do you liberals hate this country that much, honestly i want to know.

[vapaday]

Mr. Bollinger sounded pathetic, displayed what is a lack of dignity and class. He called the Pres. a petty dictator. Well Mr. Ahmadindejad was elected, but has little or no power when it comes to the actual rule of the country. Perhaps Mr. Bollinger should question our own Govt., which is run by Mini me and Mini. Why was a S. African intellect refused entry into US, to attend a meeting? Why were Cuban Medical Research Professionals refused entry into the USA? Why does our Govt. spy on our citizens?
To light up just a few, Mr Bollinger will better serve his students by questioning his own Govt., rather than allowing himself to be snookered into a no win situation.

[hoopoe]

bollinger is yet another in a long line of lapdogs for the right. his apologetics for his support of free speech were shameful, and the cruel lack of professionalism and respect he showed an invited guest was embarrassing, not only to himself but to us all; he has no doubt confirmed the world's already diminished opinion of americans with his pettiness, arrogance and condescension.

but, in truth i think this is neither about supporting free speech nor about the potential corruption an alleged despot might wreak on american audiences.

this is about giving a man the chance to set the record straight - to mount his own defense and speak directly to his critics, letting them weigh his statements independent of the filter of prejudice, propaganda, media bias and political spin.

amid all of the hype and war drumming, we desperately needed to give the man a chance to explain himself and come to our own conclusions.

i, like most commenters here, am no fan of conservative politicians, and i'd prefer to see a moderate president in iran like everyone else, but the petty and unfounded demonization of ahmadinejad has become so absurd and so transparent that it is beginning to produce the opposite effect: people like me are going to feel compelled to defend him, even if we disagree with his politics.

i for one have a great deal more respect for him than i did, simply for his reserve, grace and dignity under such an audacious attack. and i am deeply ashamed my fellow citizens after the way they have behaved.

was this the effect bollinger was after?

[WhinyDemocrat]

So let me understand this yesterday Bollinger was the liberals darling for allowing this disgusting person to speak, now he is a lapdog for the right. Heck i guess if he burns a flag he will be cool with the far left again. Disgraceful.

[hoopoe]

any liberal who folds upon the demand of vested interests and trumpets their party line is a sock puppet. the primary characteristic of liberals these days, particularly in academia, is spinelessness and an unwillingness to stand by their alleged principles under pressure.

look at what happened to finkelstein; those who should have supported his right to free academic pursuit and speech threw him under the bus ans soon as the pressure was on, and bollinger is a turncoat of this order. they lack the courage of their convictions. that is what is disgraceful.

[roger3815]

Of course it was the right thing. I'm not so comfortable with my positions that I'm not at all threatened by this guy. He's a good example of what happens when you inject religion into your government. The right could use the example. They might learn something.

Wouldn't it be great if George Bush would face an audience that wasn't hand picked?

Now that would interesting!

[avvorio]

Disgraceful conduct by Bollinger. All he did was cowtow to right-wingers so he would not los his funding, make himself look like an ungracious, ignorant ass and give Ahmadinedjad more viable in the Middle East. No matter what, if you invite someone to your house you act civilly. I guarantee this will play well with the republican base and media but on the international stage I think we got a black eye. It was petty and cruel.

[Frederic]

Bollinger is worse than Ahmadinedjad:
A. doesn't know better in his limited state of information and his fanatical theocratic mindset.

But B. knows better, has all possible information at his disposal and falls into the trap of Bush's non-existent "intellect". America has lost even more credibility, if that is at all possible, with their former European friends and admirers, if even at Columbia there isn't more intelligence available, let alone behavior.

A shame. And frightening.

[Gondi]

While I'd initially commended Bollinger for having the courage to host Ahmadinjedad, i have now totally lost the modicum of respect I had for him. And he had the audacity to say that "he felt like the weight of the civilized world rested on his shoulders". Only in your petty mind, Mr. Bollinger...

[Rosanneofpgh]

Heckova job, bollie!! Here's your medal of freedom.

If americans wonder why nobody in the world likes or respects us, this example of american diplomacy should make the reason for their dislike, not to say hatred, perfectly clear!

A civilized person does not invite someone, be they enemy or friend, and grieviously insult them!! But then we're talking about prez fucksupalot who is the most uncivilized world "leader", bar none!!

What a shameful thing it is to be an american these days!!!

[3fingerbrown]

You don't invite someone to your house and then throw a drink in his face the moment he gets there. If the man is repellent, don't invite him. But once he crosses your threshold at your invitation, you're obligated to treat him with respect.
Bollinger's rudeness is a disgrace but not a surprise. It's typical of the arrogance and self-importance of Ivy League academics that this schoolteacher should presume to insult a head of state at such a tense moment in international affairs.

[Aramingo]

Maybe, just maybe, by calling our Irani friend on some of his more, um, interesting, ideas, he was showing the fellow exactly what free speech is all about. Free speech means you will be offended, called names, and otherwise slandered.

It saddens me greatly to note that OUR president would never allow himself to be questioned in such a way.

And another thing - Will Bush or Rice be asked to address a group in Tehran?

[unitron]

Bollinger may be an expert on the First Ammendment, but he has much to learn about being a gracious host.

[GAguilar]

Bollinger, lets not forget, is at Columbia in New York City. It's a miracle he even let Ahmadinejad appear at all.

But Bollinger might not have survived the wrath of the Israeli Lobby if he'd not behaved so beastly toward his 'guest.'

As is so often the case, Michigan's Juan Cole has painted a dead accurate portrait of the bigger picture, despite the fact he wrote it almost 18 months ago, before Bollinger and Columbia had even stumbled into the frame.

There's no small irony in the fact that Lee Bollinger, of all people, has so enthusiastically become the latest useful idiot in Bush's plan to fan the flames for yet another, catastrophic war in the Middle East.

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Iran Can Now Make glowing Mickey Mouse Watches

[snip]

What is really going on here is a ratcheting war of rhetoric. The Iranian hard liners are down to a popularity rating in Iran of about 15%. They are using their challenge to the Bush administration over their perfectly legal civilian nuclear energy research program as a way of enhancing their nationalist credentials in Iran.

Likewise, Bush is trying to shore up his base, which is desperately unhappy with the Iraq situation, by rattling sabres at Iran. Bush's poll numbers are so low, often in the mid-30s, that he must have lost part of his base to produce this result. Iran is a great deus ex machina for Bush. Rally around the flag yet again.

If this international game of chicken goes wrong, then the whole Middle East and much of Western Europe could go up in flames. The real threat here is not unconventional war, which Iran cannot fight for the foreseeable future. It is the spread of Iraq-style instability to more countries in the region.

Bush and Ahmadinejad could be working together toward the Perfect Storm.

[milo9]

Maybe he got cold feet?