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

[glennbo]

Lee Bollinger tried to have it both ways, as a First Amendment protector, and covering his ass for the formidable and vocal anti-Iran/Ahmadinejab lobby. Thus, rather than dishing out a truly diplomatic, dare I say "statesmanlike" approach, Bollinger caved and took an aprincipled stance leaving a foul taste in just about everyone's mouth.

Bollinger truly reflects our amoral and feckless culture, led by that Texan "windshield cowboy" who fears horses.

[Earthsaver]

The introductionary remarks by this clown Bollinger have been quite disgraceful and a shame for the entire Columbia University and american universities in general, nationwide and internationally. When you invite a guest to speak, you do not introduce him on such a disgusting way. It simply shows that Bollinger is narrow-minded and mentally challenged. This bastard and son of a hure should be fire and kicked out of his current position. He is the shame of academic cercles and of the spirit of all scientifical approach.

[hramsden]

The rudeness of Mr Bollinger's gratuitous insults to the Iranian President during his Columbia speech was shocking, though not his cultural belief that he is so entitled. After all, he merely mimics President Bush.

His behavior was akin to inviting a guest to a dinner party and liberally insulting them at the table in front of others. Nor was there the academic in his speech; no subtlety, suggestion, hypothesis or inquiry. It was jingoism for the mob. And this from the president of a leading American institution of learning.

The generous might say he was protecting his back following criticism of the invitation extended to Mr Ahmadinejad; other might think he is seeking limelight. Did he invite the Iranian president to set him, and himself, up?

The impression is, yet again, of the righteous rude American. What bad manners! This public speech served Americans poorly.

[MasterfullyInept]

I'm with the ACLU on this one.I don't care if its George Lincoln Rockwell,Donald DeFreeze, or Mahatma Gandhi let them speak.The kids got it,when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed there weren't gays in Iran and they laughed at him.Lies or easy to spot in the sunlight of an open forum.Well, I used to think so anyway.That was before "The Big Lie" became a staple of Republican strategy.You might not know,well I didn't at least,that there are three versions of the big lie.Hitler mentioned it first in Mein Kampf, talking about the jews after the first war and their efforts to lay blame for losing on some guy named Ludendorf.

Adolf said"In this they proceeded on the sound principle that the magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility"

Later laugh a minute master marketer Joseph Goebbels would say about the English"The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous."

Sounds familiar.Later though when kibitzing with the guys Goebbels said"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad found out today that a reasonably informed populace found his lie to be absurd.Isn't it time we the people found a way to convey the same message to President Bush?

[Janco54]

I firmly believe he was told, in no uncertain terms, to attempt to set Ahmadinejad off. I think the introduction was written for him by the White House. I think they were behind him being invited to speak.
They're looking for a quick way to go into Iran and bomb the hell out of it. They think we might just be on to their lies, so they need Ahmadinejad to do something that they can use as provocation.
As I listened to the overt nastiness of the introduction I was struck by the similar quality and turn of phrase that seemed eerily like some of Bush's speeches.
Just a thought.

[OldKnute]

Oh PLEASE!

First, he insulted the man to a point of near utter humiliation.

Yes I suppose that is Free Speech.

HATE Speech.

Then Bollinger tried to take the MORAL high ground.

Excuse me!! Umm???

Abu Ghraib, Foreign abductions, extraordinary rendition, TORTURE, spying on US citizens without a warrant, suspension of habeas corpus, indeterminate sentencing, more Texas executions than births, false imprisonment, trials by Television, preemptive TERROR BOMINGS and invasion of countries that pose no threat other than to have OIL under the ground, women beaten and their husbands to get off, School teachers seducing and raping out young boys and later marrying them, rampant racism and educational segregation and economic oppression, Gays beaten on the streets.

MORAL HIGH GROUND?

Where?

LOOK, if we plan to RULE the world, wouldn’t it be nice if there were people in it?

I say, TALK, learn from each other, share, learn, exchange ideas, show a little respect, educate and change the MIND,,, the rest will follow.

What Bollinger could have DONE was to explain why we feel so hurt about the way Iran has been acting and educate Ahmadinejad to the need for SHARED values in a civilized society.

Turn our enemy into a FRIEND with some straight talk and a bit of dignified respect.

I felt Bollinger was pandering to the FOX News Junkies, Jewish Lobbyists, Armageddon Christians and his Neo-Conquer Masters Rove/Cheney/Bush.

Why didn*t Bollinger just kick Ahmadinejad like a DOG, for an hour?

Sorry! I think Mr. Ahmadinejad handled himself with restraint, intellectual acuity, articulate responses and in a gentlemanly manner.

EVEN,,,,,, if we do not agree.

AND he made Bollinger look like a ravenous, rabid, Hatemonger, foaming at the mouth,,,,, FOOL!

Just my,,,,,, Opinion.

Hate Speech will get us NOWHERE!

Free speech, diplomacy, calm discussion and debate,,, WILL.

All the best

Knute (Neo-LIB)

[DanielNewsome]

Dear OldKnute,
Well said.
It's the pot calling the kettle black. Not only is it hypocritical but it is somehow racist too.
I'd love it if we practiced all of our freedom and liberty slogans, but we don't. They have become hollow bumperstickers. At the very least we need to start cleaning our own house before we begin telling others how to clean theirs.
It is the delusional criticizing the delusions of another.

[HereticalPolemicisit]

The Wolf in Red Riding Hood would lick his chops in envy for what Lil Br'er Ahmmy did at Columbia, today.

While the pandering pols took their shots at Br'er Ahmmy being in-the-house at Columbia, Br'er Ahmmy brought his sh*t and shed off theirs comments like rain rolling off a slicker as he achieved rhetorical penetration.

Lil' Ahmmy's attackers haven't heard :
NOONE GIVES A SH*T OR ANY CREDIBILITY TO YOU, ANYMORE!!

The Peeps see your self-serving duplicity. So no matter how bad Lil' Ahmmy is, he is no worse historically or existentially than the poop you'd sell as the gold of knowledge.

The peeps seen their local brethren as the road-kill and collateral damage that have made them the victims of your rhetoric, no longer take you seriously except as punks. What do you think Br'er Ahmmy thinks of your wolf-tickets. If there's a word in Farsi for "punk-ass B*tches" you could have cught him mutteing that under his breath.

The myths of influence that the status quo thinks it has is more an illusion than what the "Great OZ" tried to brow-beat Dorothy. Those who use or naively believe the myth of moral superiority of their cause have not looked in the historical mirror. If they did they'd see something uglier than the evil witch. Yet, denial is easy amongst self-flatterers oi delusions.

Ahmmy did his thing-even with the incredulous comment that there are no gays in Iran. Lil' Ahmy showed what a bunch of little posturing punks his detractors are. Compared to these latter-day jingoist, Richard Nixon's kitchen debate with Krushchev is the Lincoln-Douglas debate.

If you don't have the gonads to take him on rhetoricaly in a face-to-face dialogue, why do you think that he would have any more than his present attitude toward your posturing threats than "Whatcha gonna do Motha F*cka, whatcha can YOU do, punk-ass boys?"

Just laughable punks with me-too followers too scared to think, let alone know.


[e-mail]

[DixieMelody]

Columbia's president came across as a hunter who caught an unsuspecting deer in his headlights, not the host to a foreign dignitary he invited. He read his venomous speech, whereas, Ahmedenijad spoke extemporaneously, coherently, and may I add, respectfully. He certainly doesn't come across as "insane," as the US propaganda machine would have us believe.

[Aramingo]

We have no gays in Iran? That's insane.

[WhinyDemocrat]

Hitler was a pretty polished speaker too. Not saying this guy is Hitler, but good public speaking skills does not prove, or even indicate, in it of itself, sanity.

[Lon]

The first amendment does not protect Ahmadinejad's right to speak at Columbia. But Columbia is right to go beyond legalism to foster debate. So calling it freedom of speech goes too far. But promoting debate is enough justification.

Ahmadinejad is important enough to be worth understanding even when he makes a fool of himself as he apparently did this time out.

[gulopartisan]

That strikes me as a vastly more sensible explanation than the aberrant notion that the dean of a major American university is so out of touch with reality that he would think inviting this man to campus "would be a giant liberal success and help to push forward the liberal cultural war." As likely as Pat Robertson getting Jim Wallis struck by lightning for treason or blasphemy or something.

Anyone who thinks Bollinger was surprised by the fascist threats to harm Columbia financially is being silly. A twelve-year-old could have predicted it. Columbia did something brave and American, and the reaction of the American government was Reich on.

I also have no problem with Bollinger's questions and comments. We hear endlessly about the traditional press celebrities who somehow never seem to recall what the hardball questions might be. Well, Bollinger gave them a lesson in asking the right questions. Like Bush, his opponent simply lied his way around them, but in doing so he looked like a utter fool.

"No gays in Iran." Hysterical.

[charon]

Allowing Ahmadinejad to speak shows we're not afraid of him. To deny him an opportunity to address Columbia U would be an act of fear and cowardice. And, in spite of many paranoid people's fears, he may have some interesting things to say. We are Americans, we should be able to judge the value of his speech for ourselves. He is not our enemy, we are not at war with Iran, and though we have issues with his government, there is no good reason to deny him an opportunity to speak. I think it may be a valuable lesson for members of Columbia U, and by our hospitality maybe he could learn from us.

[Sam1]

"Allowing Ahmadinejad to speak shows we're not afraid of him." So right. And, now that he has shown that he is not afraid to speak to an American assembly Columbia U should invite George Bush. Now there is a man who is afraid to speak to an American assembly.

[priorzola]

The only reason we give Ahmadinejad the time of day is that he fulfills the need for those with future imperialist designs in the Middle East to conjure up a new boogie man. With Saddam Hussein long dead, it becomes more and more difficult for Americans to wrap their minds around the need for a US presence in the region. It's well known that it's easier to sell the need for aggression when a one uses personified evil as a marketing tool. What we saw yesterday at Columbia is that when it comes to Ahmadinejad, his bark is worse than his bite.

It must be remembered that he is merely the President of Iran and since when does the US ever care what the President of Iran says. Within the Iranian constitution, the Supreme Leader (the Ayatollah Khameni) has the greatest authority to make decisions regarding Iranian policy.

Also, it must be noted that the election of a reactionary such as Ahmadinejad is most likely attributed to the misguided rhetoric of George Bush during his 2002 State of the Union address. By lumping Iran into the trifecta of evil and consequently attacking it's neighbor, the US put Iran in an extremely precarious position. This is unfortunate because Iran was in the midst of a reform move that could have been an example for other Islamic states about the possibility of change from within.

Although the reform movement was not producing results fast enough for imperialists types, it could have led to an internal overthrow or reduction of power of the fundamentalist leadership in Iran and, potentially, elsewhere. Iran was the only Islamic nation to have no formal diplomatic relations with the US for nearly a quarter of a century. It also has a significantly large population of people under 25 with no living memory of a Shah and were, therefore, more likely to blame it's own leadership for a failing economy and lack fo civil and human rights. Bush with his idiotic rhetoric ruined that important possibility of citizens taking responsibility for their own representation in the Islamic world.

[barrycourage]

President Ahmadinejad stands against everything I am: A Jew, a gay man, someone who detests his war by proxy through terrorists on Israel, a supporter of democracy over theocracy, and a staunch supporter of our Bill of Rights, civil rights, and international human rights.

Nevertheless, I do not think Lee Bollinger's disposition toward Ahmadinejad was professional or helpful to U.S. relations with Iran. The anti-American dogma of many Iranians, as well as radical Muslim factions throughout the Middle East, will be vitalized by Bollinger's open hostility. Bollinger has handed Iran a grenade for its ideological arsenal against the U.S.

It is one thing for an audience filled with American students to ask hard-hitting, critical questions of a despot. That is part of the learning process. It is quite another for the leader of a hosting university to denounce a guest speaker.

Although Bollinger's comments likely did not rattle Ahmadinejad, they contradict the purpose of education: The search for truth through the airing of ideas, especially unpopular ones. A university does not encourage a thorough examination of anything by expressing hostility toward an important source of information.

[WhinyDemocrat]

Were there feelings towards us going to change based on Bollinger being gracious? I guess if we treat everyone nice, all our problems will disappear. I really wish i could live in a liberal fantasy world with you people, but that damned pain in the ass known as reality keeps getting in the way.

[mgloraine]

Being deliberately rude to someone is guaranteed to elicit a negative response. Being polite MIGHT get a positive response. Those are simple social skills we were all supposed to master or at least understand by about age five. It may not make problems disappear, but it does help reduce the number of new problems being created.

[jazzman]

"It is one thing for an audience filled with American students to ask hard-hitting, critical questions of a despot. That is part of the learning process." - barrycourage

You hit the nail on the head Barrycourage. In a free society we listen to and learn from the various points of view that we encounter in the world. That is the proper role of a university and Columbia did the correct thing by allowing Ahmandinejad to speak. After all, all of us will encounter cultures, attitudes, and ideologies, that we will not like. To be a student is to listen to them, learn from them, form our own opinions based on experience and good information.

It's a shame that President Bollinger had to pander at the last minute. It did seem cheap, and appeasing after he had stood up for principle. He didn't represent himself or Columbia very well.

[avergejoe]

This was a disgraceful bait and switch is appease the Islamophobes!

Ahmenidinehjad reminded me of the Saddam execution, when he was the only one to keep his dignity, while surrounded by a pack of rabid dogs.

[Rescisco]

The First Amendment is absolute in my view. Political free speech does not depend upon content. All of it is equally protected. That said, I would not (were I a university president) have extended to Ahmadinejad an invitation to such a forum. But then again, perhaps one should invite him to openly present his views if only to be vigorously challenged in the court of public opinion. That is an experience he cannot have at home in Iran and one that serves to make a useful point. I think its a tough call to make actually.

[pivotoftheuniverse]

Two things - you're right, this wasn't a free speech issue. As you note, Columbia has no obligation to invite anyone (very few world leaders are invited to speak there annually). So Bollinger was grandstanding by claiming to be defending free speech. But you're wrong in thinking that what we saw was either new for A-Nejad or that it constituted "vigorously challenging" him. In Iran, the presidency is open to a fair degree of criticism. A-Nejad was famously hectored and jeered by students at a speech at the University of Tehran two years ago, and he's pretty heavily criticized by the press and parliamentarians on a regular basis. He's actually cut his teeth on these encounters - that's why he was pretty effective in bursting Bollinger's petulant bubble. Bollinger came of as petty and as shallow as a narcissistic politician -- not as a thoughtful and critical intellectual. He overdid it and actually allowed a detestable simpleton like A-Nejad to take a higher moral ground.

[prscnt1]

Is it so hard to see Iranian’s views?
US has been involved in Iran for a long time, not always upfront. We like dictators if they are ours and all cruel acts are forgiven. If they change their tune, like Saddam did, we kill them. We can invade others at our whim, capture them, prison them, torture them, and refuse any legal rights to them. This can not be seen as terrorism because it is done by us.
Bollinger came across as pompous ass basically regaining his standing with his constituency, for it considered a major error, for inviting this guy. He assailed him as a person and stripped him of his position, and in the process Iranians, before even a word was uttered by him. In essence, the character assassination, the main tool of the neocons and bush administration, was deployed in stealth with destruction all over.
I have no love for religion based states – Iran, Israel, and for that matter, most all Moslem countries that reject freedom to reject the religion of majority, or discriminate because of religion.
Bollinger became such a zealot advocating something that is not American.

[Veleria29]

You are so right. The President of Columbia proved to the world that there is no civility in him. He insulted a leader of a Country who was voted into office by the people. He should have respected his position if not his speech and the answers the Iranion President gave to the question asked. We should never let our enemies make us look like fools to the World and that is what the President of Columbia did by berating the President of Iran when he introduced him.

[Stevelagain]

I was opposed to this school offering their platform to the president of a terrorist state. It was wrong. Instead the time should have been given to his victims around the globe and in the middle east. The mothers, fathers, children of those killed by his terrorism.

Pres Bollinger was impressive. Extremely articulate. To hear a liberal call Ahmadinejad a supporter of terrorism, to call Ahmadinejad to respond to calling for the destruction of Israel, for building nuclear weapons, for supporting global terror, for promoting hate.

As much as I would like to credit Mr Bollinger for taking this stand and asking those questions....let me now express some concern.

I suspect Mr Bollinger may have felt that getting the president of Iran to come to America and attack Bush would be a giant liberal success and help to push forward the liberal cultural war. But after his plan came out, hundreds of people calling, offering to cut off his schools funding, cutting state funding, and possibly getting him fired may have made Mr Bollinger more concerned about losing own job and losing the the funding of the school. I suspect that explains the flip flop from supporter of far left agenda to speaking truth to evil power.

And what do we expect from the leader of Iran?

Sir, why do you sponsor global terrorism?
Answer: "I am opposed to terrorism"

Sir, why do you prosecute gays?
Answer: "There are no gays in Iran".

Sir, why do you advocate the destruction of Israel?
Answer: "I am for democracy".

Sir, why will you not stop building Nuclear weapons?
Answer: "We want to do what the law says we can do".

So of what value was this? Except to show that the far left will stoop to any level to "win the cultural war" they wage against Christian conservative America?

[wmfor]

Mr. Bush, why do you conduct wars of aggression?
Answer: "I am opposed to wars of aggresssion."

Mr. Bush, why do you persecute gays?
Answer: "I believe in treating all Americans with dignity and respect".

Mr. Bush, why do you advocate the destruction of Iran?
Answer: "I am for democracy".

Mr. Bush, why do you practics torture?
Answer: "We do not practice torture."

Mr. Bush, why do you circumvent the law to spy on American citizens?"
Answer: "I am for democracy and freedom".

Mr. Bush, why will you not stop building Nuclear weapons?
Answer: "Not on my watch".

[hoopoe]

'Instead the time should have been given to his victims around the globe and in the middle east.'

fair enough: the iranian people, whom he represents, are only one of the many victims of american terror around the globe and in the middle east. so it's only fair we let him speak. then we can have an open forum for iraqis, lebanese, palestinians, columbians, chileans, etc. etc. etc. until it sinks in that EVERY nation, including ours, is a bloody 'state sponsor of terror' and we should get off our high horse and look to our own house first. we can hardly claim the moral high ground in the world.

why dispense their disinformation and propagate unsubstantiated rumors which are likely to be the justification for war? consider your accusations carefully before you incite another illegal and unwarranted military action against a sovereign nation that poses us no immediate threat.

anyone who refuses to research these claims for himself will have the blood of innocent iranians, not to mention our troops, on his hands, simply because he couldn't be bothered to get his facts straight and think for himself.

somehow, though, i get the feeling you'll sleep just fine.

[Stevelagain]

Rescisco, terrorist rulers of foreign nations have no free speech rights in the US.

[wmfor]

Is that the exact wording of the First Ammendmant, or are you paraphrasing?

[WhinyDemocrat]

At least one person gets it.

[mgloraine]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So Congress can't make any laws abridging the freedom of speech. It doesn't say "of citizens" or "except terrorist rulers", it is unqualified.

[PlanetKansas]

From the behavior and questions from Columbia University and the slant of the press coverage, it appears everyone agrees with GW Bush's interpretation of Iran as the black hat to our white hat. The guy may yet start another popular war with our permission.

I am impressed that such a controversial figure was invited to visit the US, much less speak at a university. It took guts on A-Nejad's part to agree, and our openness as a society is comendable.

There are several ironies though. Though we certainly treat homosexuals better than Iran, Saudi Arabia and China, how can we really claim the moral high ground when they do not have equal civil rights protection in this country?

The Columbia students accused Iran of the same tired WMD threats we used to justify the Iraq invasion? Why is it only America is entitled to nuclear weapons, are they for peaceful purposes too?

And the questions about Isreal's "right to exist." Who gave them this right? Was it God? Holocaust guilt? or because they had the weapons and organization to invade Palistine in 1949 and claim it as their own? I am amazed how few Americans understand what happened, and A-Nejad is simply speaking the truth about how the region feels about it. That does not make him a demon, but someone we should listen to if we ever want peace in the Middle East.

How come our own President won't expose himself to a similarly unpopular forum, hell, he won't even do it in England!

A-Nejad is just a posturing politician. Iran still has a functioning democracy that will eventually vote him out, perhaps swinging back again to more moderate positions after his hard right swing, We cannot make the same claim for Saudi Arabia.

A-Nejad was treated rudely as a guest of Columbia, and it is depressing that even our most educated, are simply repeating the fear rehtoric of the Bush administration.

[Rascalitis]

well said!

[WhinyDemocrat]

Just exactly are the civil rights gays are denied? Marraige, or the right to live a free life?

[hoopoe]

you've put the matter into perspective beautifully.