The speech given by Iranian President Ahmadinejad at Columbia University on Monday, signified three key topics: first, a remarkable ode to freedom of speech in the University; second, Ahmadinejad's weak performance in addressing some controversial questions; and third, as host and President of Columbia Lee Bollinger's distasteful and humiliating introduction of his guest.
First, Ahmadinejad's invitation to speak at Columbia University signified this country's commitment to freedom of speech: Despite his controversial rhetoric, Ahmadinejad, who is portrayed as one of the least-liked world politicians in the United States, (perhaps up there with Fidel Castro), was officially invited by one of the most prestigious universities in the U.S., to be heard and challenged directly. This extraordinary opportunity allowed students -- perhaps future leaders -- to assess a 'perceived' enemy firsthand.
Despite serious objections to the invitation, the university decided against canceling Ahmadinejad's speech, stating that it based its decision on the fact that the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. I believe this is a highly impressive characteristic of the American society, and provides opportunities that many countries, including Iran, simply cannot enjoy.
In a way, inviting Ahmadinejad to New York is like inviting Richard Perle or Michael Bolton to Tehran University to share their views with Iranian students -- an impossible scenario.
Second, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech was a poor performance at best. The portion of his speech which highlighted Iran's stance towards international issues, was realistic, factual and accepted by Iranians and most non-Iranians worldwide (it not Americans)...issues such as criticism of the U.S., relations with Iran in general (regardless of political group or sect), their role in the 1953 coup, and U.S.'s blind support of Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war; he called for a peaceful nuclear program and peace in the Middle East.
However, the portion of his speech or responses which related to his government's policies or attempted to negate allegations against his government, (and partially aimed at neutralizing Lee Bollinger 's introduction) were contrived, vague, or plain wrong. Examples included his claim about the non-existence of homosexuals in Iran, and the rosy picture he portrayed of the situation of women. Despite his emphasis on 'the value of knowledge and awareness,' he made a great effort to cover up the situation of human rights in Iran.
The third and most surprising aspect of Ahmadinejad's speech, was the very distasteful manner in which Columbia's President Bollinger introduced his guest: "A petty and cruel dictator!" whose "intellectual courage": he doubted in responding to questions that he was "brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated." Regardless of political views or pressures from donors to cancel this guest, Bollinger decided to host Ahmadinejad and it was in very poor form to be disrespectful rather than pose his criticism through questions.
Although many Iranians worldwide, and most prominently in Iran, criticize Ahmadinejad for his stance on a wide range of issues, they were very disappointed in Bollinger's insulting and distrustful tone, and poor hospitality. Rather than properly pose his questions, Bollinger simply threw distasteful remarks at Ahmadinejad, without creating an academic dialogue.
Why bother engage him in dialogue if he planned to be so impolite and discourteous? Bollinger is neither the Chief of International Criminal Court, nor a politician to put Ahmadinejad on the stand; he is an academic who was commissioned to create dialogue and promote understanding. His behavior was unjustifiable, and counter-productive to the brave decision by the university against canceling the speech, despite pressures by the donors. One could speculate that Bollinger's behavior was an attempt to alleviate the situation, in response to his critics. However, he reduced himself from a true academic to a politician wannabe, feeding into the increasing tension between the two countries to probably start another war in the region.
Follow Omid Memarian on Twitter: www.twitter.com/omid_m
if you think democracy exists on college campuses get a life. faculty and students go through the motions of democracy and making decisions.
Bollinger scrubbed NONE of his speech...therefore he wins the freedom of speech arguement.
I believe it was during her senatorial election campaign and not after it.
Being a New York Politician it was apparant who's boots she was licking!
Yet not one word was mentioned about the American Made Apache Helicoptors firing American made rockets into the homes of non combatant Palestinians in refuge camps during the same time frame!
Neocon or Liberal,a pox on both their houses!!!!
"Columbia's "tradition" is to shut down any speakers who fall outside the teeny, tiny seditious perspective of its professors.
When Minutemen leader Jim Gilchrist and his black colleague Marvin Stewart were invited by the College Republicans to speak at Columbia last year, the tolerant, free-speech-loving Columbia students violently attacked them, shutting down the speech.
Imbued with Bollinger's commitment to free speech, Columbia junior Ryan Fukumori said of the Minutemen: "They have no right to be able to speak here." "
The minutemen are not world leaders, come up with some better BULLSH*T excuse Coulter.
On a second note, something that needs to be reported, the Senate just passed a resolution deeming Iran's Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization 76-22. Lieberman and his pro-Israel lobbies win again. Whats absolutely insane to me is that it passed 76 to 22, when we thought the democrats had the Senate. Mrs Hillary Clinton was one who voted yes.
Maybe some don't understand the implications carries. Designating the Iranian military a terrorist organization effectively enables the president to at least try to interpret this as enabling him to attack Iran. I dont get it. Did we need to designate them a terrorist organization? If these Democrats don't want war with Iran then why authorize this.
I have lost all faith in our supposed Democratic Congress, and the complete hypocrites and cowards that its made up of. Yes I'm talking to you Clinton, Reid, Casey, Bayh, Feinstein, Durbin, Levin, Rockefeller, Schumer, Kohl, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Nelson, Dorgan, Johnson, Menendez, Mikulski, Murray, Salazar, Reed, Stabenow, Conrad, Carper, Cardin, Baucus, Akaka, and fittingly Whitehouse.
As far as I'm concerned,his actions are those of a coward and bully who lacks courage in his convictions.
He has placed himself in a position alongside nefarious Senator Joe Lieberman,that of an AIPAC Pimp!!!!
This just gives him another reason to back to his country and say, "What is this American value they are trying to defend? What is this so-called democracy they are so eager to spread?"