Columbia: Not Nice to Iranian President?

[RedGlitter]

September 26, 2007

Columbia Still Reeling Over Visit

By KAREN W. ARENSON

Before Iran’s president took the stage at Columbia University on Monday, the university’s president, Lee C. Bollinger, sent out an early-morning e-mail message, calling on students and faculty “to live up to the best of Columbia’s traditions. Yesterday, many critics questioned whether Mr. Bollinger had met that test himself.

On campus and in editorials across the nation, on political blogs and throughout academia, there was a sharp division of opinion about Mr. Bollinger’s pointed introduction of the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as a man who exhibited “all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator and whose denial of the Holocaust was “either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated.

Some said Mr. Bollinger’s remarks were just the rebuke that Mr. Ahmadinejad deserved. Others said they were embarrassing and offensive. And there were still questions about whether Mr. Ahmadinejad should have been afforded a public platform at a prestigious university at all.

Rashid Khalidi, a professor of Arab studies and director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia, said, “The tone from the host of an event was uncivil and uncalled for.

“The president of the university had every right to state his differences, he said. “That was more than acceptable. But I believe it was embarrassing to the university, frankly, that they should decide to invite him and then treat him in this manner.

But Emily Steinberger, a sophomore who is a spokeswoman for LionPAC, a pro-Israel group at Columbia that had vehemently opposed Mr. Ahmadinejad’s invitation, applauded Mr. Bollinger.

“President Bollinger was caustic in his criticism of Ahmadinejad, but anything else would have been inappropriate and troubling, said Ms. Steinberger, of Teaneck, N.J. “Bollinger repeatedly said that his invitation in no way represented a condoning of Ahmadinejad’s worldviews and policies, and yesterday he proved that.

Columbia’s provost, Alan Brinkley, said the controversy “was of a magnitude we hadn’t seen before.

“This really was the biggest event I’ve seen since I’ve started as provost, said Dr. Brinkley, who called it too early to judge the fallout for Columbia.

A university spokesman, David M. Stone, said that Mr. Bollinger, a legal scholar whose specialty is freedom of speech and freedom of the press, was not available to comment yesterday because he had a tight schedule.

A number of Iranian-born scholars — experts about the Middle East who now live in the United States — said they were shocked by Mr. Bollinger.

“If I as a faculty member had done this in front of my president, I would been out the next day, said Ali Akbar Mahdi, a professor of sociology at Ohio Wesleyan University. Dr. Mahdai, who is a critic of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s, added, “I was taken aback.

So was Hamid Zangeneh, a professor of economics at Widener University in Pennsylvania and editor of The Journal of Iranian Research and Analysis. “I was disgusted by the uncivilized behavior by President Bollinger, he said. “I don’t think it is becoming for the president of a university to engage in such behavior. It wasn’t academic. It wasn’t common sense.

“Instead of behaving like a scholar, a president, he said, “he behaved like a hooligan.

Some Jewish groups that were among the most vocal critics of the Ahmadinejad invitation applauded Mr. Bollinger, but remained critical of giving the Iranian president a stage.

“He definitely came out swinging, with the whole world watching, said Elliot Mathias, director of Hasbara Fellowships, a pro-Israel organization, said of Mr. Bollinger.

“I was glad to hear how strongly he condemned him, he added. “But I don’t think it makes up for the invitation. With someone who denies the Holocaust, who wants to destroy Israel and to turn the Western world into an Islamic caliphate, there is not room to have discussion. It is like discussing with the Ku Klux Klan whether blacks are inferior.

Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said Mr. Bollinger’s speech was counterproductive.

“If you invite someone, you have to be polite, he said. “Ahmadinejad scored points, especially in their culture. If you permit an enemy to come into your home, you still treat him with dignity and respect. Therefore, we lost. The points that President Bollinger made were fine. But to close with insulting words almost undid everything he said before. It was not a good teaching experience.

Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor who was a consultant to the Coalition Provisional Authority set up in Iraq after the ouster of Saddam Hussein, said he did not consider Mr. Bollinger’s performance to be rude.

“There are some issues where it is appropriate to be delicate and careful, and to use exaggerated politeness, he said. “But there are some issues of such grave importance that being too polite to your guest is actually a betrayal of your beliefs. For Lee Bollinger, the Holocaust is one. I applaud him for that.

Gary G. Sick, a senior research scholar at Columbia’s Middle East Institute, said he would be surprised if there were “any long-term price for Mr. Bollinger’s remarks.

“A lot of people will be pleased that he came out swinging, that he was willing to tell like it is, to be tough, he said. “I bet right now that his in-box has a lot more congratulatory cables than negative ones.

[Bryn Mawr]

I think that one's duty as a host means that one should remain civil to one's guest.

If Mr Bollinger felt unable to do that then he should not have invited the President in the first place.

[minks]

Bryn Mawr;700121 wrote: I think that one's duty as a host means that one should remain civil to one's guest.

If Mr Bollinger felt unable to do that then he should not have invited the President in the first place.


It almost seems like Mr Bollinger learned some "baiting" skills from Forum Garden. :wah:

[Bryn Mawr]

minks;700132 wrote: It almost seems like Mr Bollinger learned some "baiting" skills from Forum Garden. :wah:


I don't know what you could possibly be suggesting :p

[minks]

Bryn Mawr;700138 wrote: I don't know what you could possibly be suggesting :p


Good heavens my bad :)

[Galbally]

I think its perfectly correct that Mr Bollinger spoke bluntly, the Iranian President was given ample time to reply and was allowed to state his opinions also. Also the University president did not act as a hooligan he just calmly stated his view on the Iranian president, after all he is not a diplomat he is an American, in his own country expressing his viewpoint. Expressing yourself robustly is part of the tradition of western debate, and to kowtow to the nicities of the "court speak" of Iranian diplomacy in what was a exercise in free speech in an academic debate would have been innapropriate.

That the Presidents views on the holocaust, Israel, homosexuality, etc are offensive and provocative to many people in this part of the world whatever he may believe, was a perfetly valid point to make as were all of the remarks made by Mr Bollinger, they were not polite, but so what? People are unpolite about George Bush and America all the time and no-one bats an eyelid. The truth is that Iran is a totalitarian country run by religious-military junta who brook no opposition to themselves and hide their intolerance of others' worldviews and lifestyles (both inside and outside their country) in the cloak of religious piety, they know it, and we know it, so lets not waste any time pretending the situation is otherwise.

[Bryn Mawr]

Galbally;700147 wrote: I think its perfectly correct that Mr Bollinger spoke bluntly, the Iranian President was given ample time to reply and was allowed to state his opinions also. Also the University president did not act as a hooligan he just calmly stated his view on the Iranian president, after all he is not a diplomat he is an American, in his own country expressing his viewpoint. Expressing yourself robustly is part of the tradition of western debate, and to kowtow to the nicities of the "court speak" of Iranian diplomacy in what was a exercise in free speech in an academic debate would have been innapropriate.

That the Presidents views on the holocaust, Israel, homosexuality, etc are offensive and provocative to many people in this part of the world whatever he may believe, was a perfetly valid point to make as were all of the remarks made by Mr Bollinger, they were not polite, but so what? People are unpolite about George Bush and America all the time and no-one bats an eyelid. The truth is that Iran is a totalitarian country run by religious-military junta who brook no opposition to themselves and hide their intolerance of others' worldviews and lifestyles (both inside and outside their country) in the cloak of religious piety, they know it, and we know it, so lets not waste any time pretending the situation is otherwise.


It wasn't what he said that was out of order, it was the way that he said it.



OK, he's not a diplomat, but he is the head of a prestigious University and, as such, must have a good range of verbal and social skills - enough to put his points across without being insulting.

[Galbally]

Bryn Mawr;700149 wrote: It wasn't what he said that was out of order, it was the way that he said it.



OK, he's not a diplomat, but he is the head of a prestigious University and, as such, must have a good range of verbal and social skills - enough to put his points across without being insulting.


The point is debateable but I think that on balance Mr Bollinger was well within his rights and remit to be as frank in his opinion as he was. Perhaps there was an element of grandstanding involved, but I still hold that nothing that he said was wrong, and the remarks were not spoken in anger but in a deliberate and measured way. I certainly agree with the general sentiment of the opening part of that debate.

I think it was a unique opportunity for the Iranian President to experience the depth of feeling about his regime and personal opinions that exists on this side of the world, he expressed his displeasure about the remarks made about himself, he made the points he wanted to make in a fairly robust and jocular manner (which is his style), and others made the points they wished to make in a similar vein. It was a far more interesting event that the trite speeches made in the UN and far more illuminating.

[ThreeStents]

I'm not exactly a fan of the Iranian President. I also think a lot of what he says publicly is designed to please the Ayatollahs and Imams back in Iran who are largely responsible for putting him in power to begin with. He knows his image and comments are being seen and heard by millions of Arabs throughout the middle east. Don't forget Iran is an Islamic Theocracy where saying bad things about Israel and Jews is a favorite pastime.

He probably knows the Holocaust really happened, but it would be political suicide to admit such a thing. I would also say that he probably has little or no control over Iranian weaponry and munitions being sent to Iraq for use against Iraqis and Americans...the same way Bush has limited control over what the CIA and Blackwater does in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Still, I thought Bollinger's comments were childish and inappropriate, especially coming from a University President. He sounded more like Homer Simpson than a spokesman for a major American university. It would have made more sense for Bollinger to have introduced Ahmadinejad to a roomful of holocaust survivors, or arranged for him to tour the Holocaust Memorial. The pushy 60 minutes reporter who interviewed Ahmadinejad on last Sunday's program was almost as big a Homer as Bollinger was. The blind interviewing the blind.

[jamiebocc]

Bryn Mawr;700121 wrote: I think that one's duty as a host means that one should remain civil to one's guest.

If Mr Bollinger felt unable to do that then he should not have invited the President in the first place.


I personally would never have invited him to speak, but once that happen . Well that was really bad manners .

[Bryn Mawr]

jamiebocc;700430 wrote: I personally would never have invited him to speak, but once that happen . Well that was really bad manners .


Whether he should have been asked is another question, this is definitely about his treatment once that had happened.

[jamiebocc]

Bryn Mawr;700438 wrote: Whether he should have been asked is another question, this is definitely about his treatment once that had happened.


I didn't watch it all so I don't know how the rest of it went.