The Columbia Fiasco
Let me first state, unequivocally, that I am by no means a fan of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Personally, I think his victory over Mohammad Khatami in 2005 was a blow for Iran, and that Khatami was the sort of progressive force that Iran truly needed. Khatami’s tenure as President caused numerous clashes with hard line, conservative Islamists; primarily his focuses on the transparency of the rule of law, democratic reforms, and a broader base for public participation in political processes. Unfortunately, because Khatami lost most of his confrontations with the afore mentioned hard line elements in Iran, such as those who control the likes of the Guardian Council (who banned thousands of reformist candidates in the 2004 elections), his Presidency became doomed. Regarded as Iran’s first truly reformist President, he attempted to institute the ‘twin bills’, legislation that would have introduced electoral reform and clearly defined Presidential powers and the ability of the office of the President to confront constitutional manipulations at the hands of numerous state institutions. It should also not be overlooked that Khatami’s Presidency altered Iranian foreign policy to one that was conciliatory, rather than confrontational.
Ahmadinejad has, obviously, not worked to build on the foundations laid by Khatami. His government has, most likely because of the occupation of Iraq, rendered Iran far more isolationist, which has only helped compound international condemnation of Iran’s nuclear goals. That said, it should not be overlooked that when President Bush singled out Iran as a member of the Axis Of Evil, Khatami was still President.
There are numerous beliefs held by Mr. Ahmadinejad that I adamantly disagree with. The most obvious is his position regarding the Holocaust. The second would be that he routinely states that his policies are widely supported in Iran, which isn’t particularly the case, though it must not be overlooked that no matter who is the President of the country, hostile action taken against Iran would most certainly galvanize popular support for his government as a matter of sovereign principle, especially were the United States or Israel its authors.
With regards to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, I have written extensively in the past about why Iran might want to obtain a deterrent. That said, if the IAEA is given complete access to Iran’s facilities and it is determined that the program is being developed for peaceful purposes, I see no reason why they should not be allowed to develop it, just as others have. In my opinion, Pakistan represents no less of a threat when it comes to the possibility of nuclear weapons finding their way into the hands of undesirables, something I have written about at length as being rather far fetched given retaliatory realities. In truth, they possess a military infrastructure that has a past of supporting questionable regimes and organizations, the Taliban being the most obvious.
All of that said, did Lee Bollinger’s opening statement at Columbia University the other day go too far? There is no question that he insulted Ahmadinejad and felt that he was in the right to do so. The question therefore has to be asked – was it his place, as the Dean of a school that had invited Ahmadinejad to speak in an open forum, to be so unprofessional? Don’t get me wrong, there were aspects of his address that I agree with, but he had absolutely no right to employ language such as that he felt the ‘weight of the modern, civilized world’ on his shoulders to express his ‘revulsion’. No matter how you want to spin that, such a statement paints Iran as neither modern nor civilized. Ironically, in the same speech, he praised many Iranians for their intelligence and fortitude.
For the President of an Ivy League school to actually claim Iran an uncivilized nation does a massive disservice to that institution. When Rome was but a far off dream, the Persian culture was one of the most advanced in the known world. To paint it in such a light was, in my opinion, idiotic and entirely counterproductive. It was, in truth, a cowards way of calling the man sitting to his left uncivilized without actually facing him and naming him as such directly. Instead, Dean Bollinger chose to paint an entire people with a singular brush while intimating that the ‘modern, civilized world’ is somehow purer in nature. Coming from a man that heads an institution renowned for its political sciences department, that statement was shocking. Because the last time that I checked, illegally invading and occupying a foreign country, and in the process killing countless innocents, does not constitute the act of a civilized society. Nor does the inability of the populations of such societies to hold those responsible accountable for such actions when based on lies.
Want to bookmark or share this entry?
This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 26th, 2007 at 3:10 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
September 26th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
It is easy for Dean Bollinger to criticize a leader from another nation. He is well protected, as long as he criticizes someone who is not an ally of Bush. No one in Iran would be condemned for acting the same if Bush went to an Iranian university. Why he acted unprofessionally, I don’t know. I actually had to reread the article to ensure it was not a student saying that, which is what I first thought.
I feel Iran’s Prez is really just trying to show his defiance and his stance that Iran will not be pushed around. Why else would he agree to appear at a university? He had to of expected that type of behaviour and line of questioning. The article I read described Ahmadinejad’s reaction as if he took it with a grain of salt.
Reading some of the comments about “why did they even allow him into the country” demonstrates ignorance. As I read Bush’s speech about “abuse of human rights” I can only think of one word: Hypocrite!
Who has abused more rights lately? What country has felt it is their right to impose their views, their ways of life, their desires for control over other countries? What country declares some bullshit war with another because they can’t get what they want? Don’t all answer at once.
I’d like to see Bush visit Iran and attend a University talk there or even Canada or Britain. Hell, I’d like to see him go anywhere outside the US or schools in the US filled with students weened out to let in only those in support of Bush. I’d like to see him answer some real questions, with the person asking questions not later targeted for Blackwater’s private jets that fly to UK and then to Syria or Czech or Romania or wherever they can torture someone for speaking their mind.
September 26th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
I agree, and i’ve been seeing alot of other people react negatively to the introduction as well. In fact, i went to the Columbia University web page to see if i could get the Dean’s email address, and couldn’t, though i’ll admit i only skimmed.
I think that if he disagreed so vehemently with Ahmadinejad, the move should have been to not invite him to speak. Or if it was more of an academic/staff issue, were the faculty wanted him to speak, the head of whatever department was pushing for him the hardest should have introduced him. One does not invite the head of a foreign nation to a University, and then open up with great guns. That is not civil discourse. He was both uninformed, and uneducated himself, something that he claimed of the Iranian president.
I was a little disgusted with the entire affair. While i do not agree with much of anything that Ahmadinejad does, or says, i would draw the line as Dean at insulting a visiting head of state that my institution had invited.
September 26th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Umm but from the movie 300 - I think I did see elements of homosexuality in ancient Persia.
If Frank Miller isn’t a credible source - I don’t know what is.
September 26th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
I can’t imagine George W. Bush being invited to speak at a foreign university and being introduced with a speech about how his government failed the people of New Orleans, or how this many Americans don’t have health insurance, and that many Americans live below the poverty line, etc.. Regarless of your opinion of the man, that’s just insulting. Ahmadinejad was justified in accusing Bollinger of trying to bias the audience against him.
September 26th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
I think Ahmadinejad hit it on the head when he suggested that pressure from the media was the reason for the speech.
I just want to know how Bollinger would introduce Bush or Cheney. He’ll never get the chance though. Those two lack the stones to speak in an open student forum.
September 26th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
I had hoped that the Dean of Columbia would be above the hyperbole typically employed by the politicians and media to make their case against Iran. He should have let Ahmadinejad’s performance speak for itself and kept his introduction terse if he has no respect for the man.
Perhaps Bollinger is hoping for financial contributions as a reward from the “have mores” …
It might sound juvenile, but the Carrie prom scene comes to mind.
September 26th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
I wholeheartedly and unequivocally agree with everything that Bollinger said, and then some.
It was very satisfying in very basic, very primitive, very uncultured kind of way.
The inner animal in me would like to see Ahmadinejad kidnapped and held hostage for a year or two - see how them islamo-fascists like that! I want to escort the lad through Auschwitz to see for himself and imagine the horrors that took place there. I would do so by gunpoint, and in shackles if need be.
Alas - and luckily - my inner animal is not in control of things. The cultured and civilised part of me cannot help but to feel that Ahmadinejad was bullied by an uncultured and uncivilised university administrator. You don’t bully bullies, however good that makes you feel inside. Or however justified it may be. Moral high ground, ends and means, and all that.
What we witnessed was a mugging. Are we really so proud of that?
We lead by example. If we truly are the cultured, civilised society we claim to be, then by all means we call a spade a spade, and say what needs to be said. Part of being a liberal, western society mans that one takes the moral high ground, even if we get beat up by it from time to time. The price one pays.
But if you’re foolish enough to invite the man in the first place, then show the respect that our society should be able to show.
Intellectually, it is easy to beat up on someone, physically or verbally. There’s no culture or finesse about it. There are sophisticated (and equally cutting and direct) means with which to reveal the flaws of the madman. The fact that Bollinger was unable to bring those to bear reflect badly on him and his university.
And on our western society. A great example we showed.
September 26th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Penn and Teller, now there’s some credible sources.
September 26th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Boreal,
Auschwitz is famous, but Mauthausen in Austria is less visited, more original and has not be modified for tourists. http://www.jewishgen.org/forgottencamps/Camps/MauthausenEng.html
Contiki tours, though, has one of their tours go through the camp when they pass by through Austria. They walk you right through the gas cambers and tell you what the writing on the wall means. It is very disturbing and most of the group on the party tour is very quiet for a few days.
The tour guides said they go to Auschwitz but Mauthausen is more “real” feeling.
September 26th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
I have little sympathy for the poor introduction… Mr. Ahmadinejad has been outright insulting towards Western nations as a whole. His comments regarding our treatment of women and our ‘brutal’ police forces are ridiculous.
This guy plays the game. He got a little back.
Mind you, I’d expect a little more class from an academic doing an introduction. None the less, my sympathy just goes as far. This is the man that refused to investigate the brutal torture death of a Canadian woman who’s crime was taking pictures of a “non-existant” student protest.
It’s really hard to draw up much sympathy for a guy like that. It really is. As well, the point of academic study is not to pull punches for political correctness. There is documented evidence of his support for the oppression of women and those that support political freedom. Bring it up. If he wants an academic audience, he certainly should expect an academic criticism of his track record.
Bush, by the way, is regularly flogged in front of classrooms worldwide for his policies. It may not happen to his face, but only because Western leaders generally would refuse to make a speech if they couldn’t pre-read the introduction. But really, what’s the difference? At least this guy (Bollinger) had the courage to do so in the open, and not behind the closed classroom doors.
Bollinger’s comments weren’t nearly as politically incorrect as some from Ahmadinejad’s speech.
“In Iran we don’t have homosexuals like in your country. We don’t have that like in your country. … In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don’t know who’s told you that we have this.”
The fact that Americans can invite people that have wished death upon their allies (the “Israel should be wiped off the map” comments) is a good sign that democracy and freedom are truly alive in the West.
Ahmadinejad, no matter how hard he tries to appear progressive, is a brutal dictator with outspokenly aggresive intentions in the Middle East. The protection of Israel is key. Having a guy that calls for the destruction of Israel, while playing with nuclear technology is simply unacceptable. We’ve got to keep that in perspective.
By the way Matt, great show last night. That was the fourth time I’ve seen you over as many years and was the best show of those in my opinion. Really impressed with the new album.
September 26th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
[quote comment="27273"]… The protection of Israel is key. …[/quote]
I have to ask–key to what and why?
The only sane answer I can see is protection of lives & basic human rights, something that is often not extended to Palestinian Arabs, not even by their Arab neighbours.
Peace? Israel has been just as aggro as any of her neighbours, and not always in self-defense.
Because more than one religion calls that stretch of land “holy”?
Democracy?
And with tens of billions of US aid & military tech, how much help does Israel really need? Not to mention the officially non-existent nuclear arsenal…
September 26th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
[quote comment="27276"]Actually, that comment was completely misquoted and then used around the world. He did not actually say it should be wiped off the face of the map. I have posted links to information about it. And while I agree that much of what the man stands for is terrible, let’s add a little perspective…
The USA and women…
– one-fourth of its adult women victims of forcible rape sometime in their lives, often by someone they know, including family members;
– one-third of them are victims of sexual abuse by a husband or boyfriend;
– 30% of people in the country say they know a woman who’s been physically abused by her husband or boyfriend in the past year;
– one in four of its women report being sexually molested in childhood, usually repeatedly over extended periods by a family member or other close relative;
– its women overall experience extreme levels of violence; an astonishing 75% of them are victims of some form of it in their lifetimes;
–domestic violence is their leading cause of injury and second leading cause of death
But yes, they can vote and dress as they see fit. It’s not confined to far off lands my friend, it’s right here among us as well.[/quote]
Do you think that pulling some statistics out of the air about how awful the United States is , adds anything to the discussian? When someone points out the failures of some Ringo Star lookalike tyrant you feel a recital of some statistics is a defense?
September 26th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
gtm, there’s a difference between thinking that the introduction was completely inappropriate and “having sympathy” for Ahmadinejad. Criticism from the audience is one thing, but to be insulted in that manner by the Dean who was introducing him is not what should be expected in academia, and reflects poorly on the university. Again, imagine the reaction if Bush were introduced in a similar manner.
September 26th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
In reply to US statistics and women, it is just a reminder of how fragile our rights are. Many acts of family violence, particularly in Canada of late have been cultures new to Canada. I remember my Grandma telling me stories of how her Father used to whip her Mother just as he would the animals and this was perfectly acceptable. This is only three generations back. I believe a lot of men out of fear of weakness (totally backwards) have not been willing to give up control of women. I also believe a lot is what they have been taught religiously and the rest can be chalked up to substance abuse. I am fully aware that it is still a horrible fight in our country but is is much worse worldwide. Genetically men are turning into women, maybe it’s some sort of plan of nature to balance the strengths. I also don’t understand why men don’t come to realize that all they claim that make them happy is willfully given to them in a loving relationship. Sad though what hormones in our waters is doing. I’ve always personally liked men more than women from a fun point of view. I seriously love all of the thought on this site. Reading my posts it makes me painfully aware of how little written communication I have done through the years.I’m much more of a people person (smells,tells,sounds and sometimes touch)please forgive typos, I think it was still called typing when I was in school . It’s so primitive and why hasn’t voice response been perfected long before this? I used to get away with reading the news, horoscope and a few articles(perhaps reference (I normally hate websites) darn you people, darn you Matt.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
[quote comment="27276"]And while I agree that much of what the man stands for is terrible, let’s add a little perspective…
The USA and women…
– one-fourth of its adult women victims of forcible rape sometime in their lives, often by someone they know, including family members;
– one-third of them are victims of sexual abuse by a husband or boyfriend;
– 30% of people in the country say they know a woman who’s been physically abused by her husband or boyfriend in the past year;
– one in four of its women report being sexually molested in childhood, usually repeatedly over extended periods by a family member or other close relative;
– its women overall experience extreme levels of violence; an astonishing 75% of them are victims of some form of it in their lifetimes;
–domestic violence is their leading cause of injury and second leading cause of death
But yes, they can vote and dress as they see fit. It’s not confined to far off lands my friend, it’s right here among us as well.[/quote]
All very well said (original post included).
I think it’s a very good point you brought up above…we cannot let a pot call a kettle black…especially considering the massive influence the US has over the rest of the world through their political and financial strategies (well, manipulations). The US can say what they want about the lack of womens rights and the savage of other civilizations, but at the same time they cannot bring themselves to seriously employ the idea of a female president (although there are several nations in the world who have had female leaders throughout history and in the present), and that only serves to subordinate women by continuously scoffing the idea of a woman in a true role of leadership. Well, there may be a slight possibility in the near future for Hilary to win it, but how slight??? We even have the same problems with violence against women here in Canada.
Anywayysss…
Originally I just wanted to say that I think that there is no place for personal attacks on someone who is a guest speaker…regardless of their reputation and opinions etc…Especially in an Ivy league university where all Ideologies and philosophies are embraced not for their moral value, but from an educational perspective…I mean Profs don’t avoid, or inject their own personal feelings for or against such topics as Nazi Fascism and the Third Reich…and people certainly do not pay their tuition in order to hear their dean spout off at the mouth about what is and what isn’t civilized…I say save the lecture for the guest…since we are here to learn…and are paying to learn…although Ahmadinejad is not without bloodied hands…and does hold some piss poor attitudes about things, good ol democracy says he has a right to speak, and i don’t think any human being should be ridiculed and have their words discounted before there is a chance for them to be heard. it puts out an unfair advantage and is counter productive to the whole point of holding a lecture.
I guess it’s too far fetched to suggest that the Dean was put up to this in order to further vilify the leader of a country the US is posturing to war with…is it? There’s my conspiracy theory:)
September 27th, 2007 at 1:19 am
Mama raised me to be respectful of sitting Heads of State. Call me old fashioned, but I can’t see how insulting anyone, directly or not, regardless of your opinion of the person or their positions can add anything positive to the public discourse.
You are, of course, fully entitled to whatever opinion you wish, and the First Ammendment in the US gives you the right to express said opinion. But that doesn’t mean the principles of courtesy and civility are to be tossed out the window when you come face to face with your political/religious/idealogical/etc opponent.
Let’s take Bush for example. Personally, I don’t like him, though I won’t go into the laundry list of reasons as to why right now. But were I to find myself in the highly unlikely situation of having the opportunity to talk to the man, insults would be the last thing on my mind. And were I, again in an extremely unlikely situation, given the opportunity to introduce him giving a speech, my options would be: a) introduce the man with all the respect and dignity due to a sitting head of state regardless of my views of his policies and action, or b) if I couldn’t do it as I just described, politely decline.
Then again, me and mama, we’re old fashioned.
September 27th, 2007 at 7:35 am
[quote comment="27276"]The USA and women…
…
But yes, they can vote and dress as they see fit. It’s not confined to far off lands my friend, it’s right here among us as well.[/quote]
I agree Matt, those are some very serious concerns. But those are not government policies or the result thereof. It’s individuals making poor choices (those committing crimes against women), and those people need to be prosecuted.
I think that given the choice, most women would live in America over Iran. The difference you see Matt, is that in North America and the West, those statistics are known. People are proactively doing something about it, maybe not enough, but something. I find it hard to believe that people are much different elsewhere in the world. Those same statistics are likely in Iran too, but all those crimes are comitted there with no study and little effort to prevent them.
I would also say that the right to vote isn’t something to just be shrugged at, that’s a major difference, perhaps outweighing all others. In the West, women have the power to change institutions.
[quote comment="27278"]I have to ask–key to what and why?[/quote]
Israel is by far the West’s strongest ally in the Middle East. The Americans pay alot of money and arms to keep it that way. Israel, believe it or not, is the only secular state in the reigion. I can go live there and be a Christian, Muslim or Jew. No problems. They even have elected representation from all of the above in their legislature.
We need to actively protect Western-style democracies wherever they exist. It seems throughout history that once a democracy has been uprooted, it’s a long process to return freedom to those that live there.
September 27th, 2007 at 8:44 am
[quote comment="27285"][quote comment="27276"]Actually, that comment was completely misquoted and then used around the world. He did not actually say it should be wiped off the face of the map. I have posted links to information about it. And while I agree that much of what the man stands for is terrible, let’s add a little perspective…
The USA and women…
– one-fourth of its adult women victims of forcible rape sometime in their lives, often by someone they know, including family members;
– one-third of them are victims of sexual abuse by a husband or boyfriend;
– 30% of people in the country say they know a woman who’s been physically abused by her husband or boyfriend in the past year;
– one in four of its women report being sexually molested in childhood, usually repeatedly over extended periods by a family member or other close relative;
– its women overall experience extreme levels of violence; an astonishing 75% of them are victims of some form of it in their lifetimes;
–domestic violence is their leading cause of injury and second leading cause of death
But yes, they can vote and dress as they see fit. It’s not confined to far off lands my friend, it’s right here among us as well.[/quote]
Do you think that pulling some statistics out of the air about how awful the United States is , adds anything to the discussian?
When someone points out the failures of some Ringo Star lookalike tyrant you feel a recital of some statistics is a defense?[/quote]
To Robert R:
I could rely on the old maxim, don’t throw stones in a glass house, or look to the bible for the whole let he who is without sin throw the first stone, but i won’t. Instead, i’ll reply with one word: perspective.
What Matt was doing was putting forth that while Bollinger and his ilk feel they can jump on the Iranian President with both feet, a great many of the stastics being used against him, when juxtaposed to those found in the states, gives some perspective to the entire situation. How does it add to the discussion? Well, it draws light to the fact that no nation is free of such social ills, and while few agree with the Iranian President on any number of issues, inviting him to YOUR univserity and then blasting him for his countries social problems while ignoring your own is relatively disingenous. You could argue that anyone is allowed the free speech to be critical of another (which, apparantly, is no longer true in the States: See the Move On ad), but that does nothing to draw away from the fact that Columbia asked him to attend and speak, and that there were any number of more professional ways in which the Dean could have made his point. Simply asking questions, and then allowing Ahmadinejad to dig his own hole, would have sufficed. Now, you have peopled in Iran who don’t support the president, feeling some sympathy towards him because the Dean also managed to insult pretty much everyone in the country.
As for the statistics used as a defense, i’ll first say that what: statistics can only be used one way? Fair and balanced hey, do you watch much Fox news? But even more importantly, it was not a defense of Ahmadinejad at all. It was a careful observation of the fact that many people hold up these issues against Iran and its president, that he and they are evil, because look, they have social ills. If you read the beginning of the post you’ll see that Matt does nothing to say that he supports Ahmadinejad, but that the Dean of Columbia University was way off base by being less than professional. Honestly, what it comes down to is hate. Simple as that. Americans seem to hate him because…i’m not certain. And while i admit i would not shed a tear over his demise, i do not hate him. But what the west has been doing for years is alienating Iran and other such nations, with threats of embargos and war and blah, blah, blah. Same old, same old. Foreign policy that has not worked for the last 30-50 years, no problem, lets just keep at it.
I would suggest in the future, instead of cherry-picking what details best suit your apparant hatred for those that look at both sides of the issue, you actually consider it from as many angles as possible.
September 27th, 2007 at 10:23 am
[quote comment="27347"]
I would also say that the right to vote isn’t something to just be shrugged at, that’s a major difference, perhaps outweighing all others. In the West, women have the power to change institutions.
[/quote]
Do they? Does anyone? Look at some of the leaders the right to vote has gotten us (us meaning citizens of Canada and the US). To a certain extent, all the talk about women’s rights is just lip service, equivalent to Ahmadinejad saying that women are “more respected” than men in Iran. Not that things aren’t better here than in Iran, but here, women have the power to change institutions - in theory - and women are protected from violence - in theory. But in reality, many people don’t vote, those who do must choose among candidates they do not like and who don’t really represent them, women are disadvantaged when it comes to getting top jobs and underpaid compared to men at all levels, and many (most?) incidents of domestic and other violence against women go unreported. I think a major difference, though not the only one, between the status of women in Iran and in the US is that people in the US talk a good game. Some people try and they deserve credit for it, and perhaps there are more of them here than there, but they don’t excuse a whole society for its flaws.
September 27th, 2007 at 10:40 am
[quote comment="27347"]We need to actively protect Western-style democracies wherever they exist. It seems throughout history that once a democracy has been uprooted, it’s a long process to return freedom to those that live there.[/quote]
Let’s not forget that although our style of Democracy seems to be the be all end all of political ideals that it is not even close to the end of the evolution of politics…there will be other ideologies (most will fail miserably, or pale in comparison), but our forms of Democracy will one day be paving stones to a new and even more enlightened ideal. All ideologies are formed either in response to, or in contention with another. Hopefully we will at least see one more new ideology based on democracy that can transcend our own very convoluted and contradicting brand of it.
Moving from one Ideal to another never was, or ever will be an easy or peaceful process…regardless of if the move is to or from Democracy; for there will always be opposition and resistance where the status quo is being threatened. Don’t forget the turmoil that was caused when other political systems had been uprooted in order to make way for Democratic movements.
September 27th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
[quote]Because the last time that I checked, illegally invading and occupying a foreign country, and in the process killing countless innocents, does not constitute the act of a civilized society. Nor does the inability of the populations of such societies to hold those responsible accountable for such actions when based on lies.[/quote]
It’s been my experience that those who have the most to be ashamed of are often the quickest to condemn others and I think that’s the case here. The only way the current US establishment gets away with the mass slaughter being done in Americas name is to claim there’s a worse evil out there.
American supplied chemicals went into producing poison gas weapons that killed thousands of Iranian in the 1980s after the invasion by a western backed Iraq, who has more reason to fear whom in this case. The official hypocrisy can get as dense as the densest fog sometimes.