Share
The Ivy League schools have given us one more reason to proudly call ourselves Hokies.
In an effort to promote free speech at Columbia University, president Lee Bollinger hosted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak to students and faculty on campus Monday afternoon.
Bollinger claims that despite Ahmadinejad being an ardent Holocaust denier, a supporter of terrorist activities, and a repressive force against human rights, he should still be given a platform to speak.
"But why?" You may ask.
Because Bollinger believes it is his duty to encourage free speech on campus and to allow students to hear from all kinds of leaders, even ones such as Iran's, who calls for Israel to be "wiped off the map."
I agree that it is important for students to be exposed to all different types of people and viewpoints. Unfortunately for Bollinger, however, this is one of the first times he's actually showing any interest in First Amendment rights.
Columbia University has had trouble living up to its goal of freedom of speech in the past. In 2006, Jim Gilchrist, the president of the Minuteman Project, an organization devoted to securing the border to end illegal immigration while at the same time helping to promote legal immigration, was invited to speak on campus during a discussion on immigration. During the event, several students stormed the stage, causing a violent confrontation and an end to the speech.
It is hard to control the passions of a student body, but when event organizers moved to bring Gilchrist back this year for an engaging discussion of immigration, they were met with a great deal of resistance. Last week, the Columbia Political Union retracted Gilchrist's invitation to speak, claiming that they had discussed the event with other student groups and individuals and decided it was not appropriate for Columbia.
The question of what is or is not appropriate doesn't seem to enter into Bollinger's mind. He has come out numerous times in support of Ahmadinejad's appearance but was strangely absent during the discussion of Gilchrist's. It is not just with controversial speakers that Bollinger's case for students' rights falls short.
Here at Virginia Tech we are used to seeing students in ROTC all around campus. Not only do they have their own dorms and training grounds, but they also participate in separate military classes and wear their uniforms almost daily. Our school prides itself on the support and respect given to those individuals who have decided to devote themselves to our country.
Beyond support and respect, however, the most fundamental thing we allow our ROTC is a voice on campus. President Bollinger, supposedly a beacon for free speech, denies that fundamental right to ROTC at Columbia University.
During a vote in 2003, Columbia students came out overwhelmingly in support of allowing ROTC back on campus after it had been kicked off in the late sixties. Despite Columbia students' support of free speech for ROTC recruiters and their programs, the faculty, with Bollinger casting the deciding vote, rejected the reestablishment of an ROTC program on campus.
Why is it that the administration of this Ivy League school supports a dangerous tyrant's free speech yet rejects the ROTC's? According to Columbia's administration, it's because ROTC's values are not in line with the university's due to the military's "Don't ask, don't tell policy," which supposedly discriminates against homosexuals.
I find this perplexing because President Ahmadinejad is the leader of a nation that is at the forefront of the battle against homosexuals. This intolerant nation punishes lesbians with public whippings and sentences gay men to beatings and sometimes execution.
I'll give Bollinger the benefit of the doubt and assume that he must just be overlooking this slight violation of human rights for the greater good of Columbia and the promotion of free speech on campus. If he would like to avoid being labeled a hypocrite, however, perhaps he could show the same backbone in his defense of the Minuteman Project's president and of ROTC's rights on campus.
Someone who has the audacity to admit that they would host Adolph Hitler at Columbia University prior to World War II must be strong enough to defend those who wish to join the ROTC or hear from a leader in the fight against illegal immigration.
Leave a comment 11 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
A speaker can only be bought to Columbia if they are invited by a school or a student group. A faculty member, without the backing of a student group of club, wanted to bring Gilchrist. He falsely advertised the event to Columbia Political Union, letting them think that the event would be something different. Bollinger did not reject or accept Gilchrist or Ahmadinejahad. They were both wecome in his view
Reply to this Top
Your article is uninformed. There is no doubt that Columbia is liberal, Bollinger is an ardent defender of free speech. The two events you are trying to compare are not comparable as the World Forum held at Columbia is an institution sponsored event and the MinuteMen event was put on my students. Also to be fair, Columbia did have Republican Senator John McCain as its keynote speaker at graduation in 2006. The tragedy of the MinuteMen event is more testament to a small irresponsible portion of the student body.
Reply to this Top
I am not here to promote the views of the Iranian President but it was thoroughly disgusting to watch how Mr. Bollinger conducted himself. I wonder where he learned to arbitrate. By the way, it shows his character, sic. America preaches to the world to how the rest of us should adopt her ways and boast of liberties & rights but hearing the President of Columbia University, I wonder if someone can teach him simple courtesies, decency of conduct and common sense. Please note that it is wrong to invite someone as a guest and disrespect him so outright. Read the biography of the Prophet of Islam and learn how he conducted himself even in front of adversaries. Finally, here is something for the President of Columbia University – “Mr. Bollinger, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel tyrant. You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated. I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical mindset that characterizes so much of what you say and do. I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these or change yourselfâ€. His own words slightly modified.
Reply to this Top
The author’s article reflects a fundamental and regrettably common misunderstanding regarding the VT Corps of Cadets and ROTC. The Corps is a unique university-supported organization, designed to provide a 24-hr leadership laboratory. ROTC is a federally-supported officer training program, leading to a commission in the armed forces. They're not synonymous - one has to be in the Corps to be in ROTC, but not everyone in the Corps is in ROTC. Most schools which have ROTC do not have a Corps of Cadets… their students live in regular dorms, and wear US military style uniforms once a week.
Reply to this Top
As a Columbia student, I have never been more proud to call myself a member of this community. I don't think anyone who was not here to witness the energy on this campus yesterday cannot conceptualize how extraordinary a man President Lee Bollinger is - having invited the President of Iran to speak on campus, Bollinger had the weight of the world riding on his shoulder. Had he gone soft on the Iranian guest, the world would have shunned him for doing so. He acted with ultimate propriety, all the while being sure to communicate his - and the world's, and Columbia's - disgust for the words and actions of this repugnant tyrant. I think anyone who objects to the presence of the Iranian President on my campus - while you have the absolute right to an opinion - should reconsider.
Reply to this Top
Mohi M. Marikar, what the hell is the point of turning Bollinger's words on himself? That made no sense whatsoever. Get off of your soapbox and stop acting like the guy insulted your heritage. ANYONE... ANYONE who claims and tries to convince people that the holocaust is a myth deserves to get insulted everywhere he goes. That goes WAY beyond opinion and ends up somewhere on the other side of slander. And for you to sit here and write not only a sentence but a paragraph no less about how disgusted you were by how Bollinger acted, you really need to just shut up. Seriously. Stop trying to sound clever by quoting the guys words and throwing them back at him.
Reply to this Top
The comparisons the author makes don't apply. The reason Gilchrist was not allowed on campus was order. The administration saw a near riot happen because of the speaker and didn't want that to happen again. It wasn't that they wanted to suppress his opinion. Also, the ROTC would have a PERMANENT position on campus rather than a temporary one time speech. So just because the Iranian president doesn't like homosexuals, he won't be a part of the campus permanently, as would the ROTC. Both comparisons are extremely weak at best.
Reply to this Top
The problem with Dr. Bollinger's inelegant attack on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is how it will likely be taken in the Middle East. Many Americans like to say that the United States is at least partly responsible for terrorism directed at us because of the way we treat the peoples of the Middle East. An important part of their culture is the tradition of hospitality and the responsibilities incumbent on a host. Inviting someone to your home only to welcome him with insults, personal attacks and accusations is the height of rudeness in their eyes. A lot of folks in the Middle East will see this as a petty attack on a fellow Muslim. Dr. Bollinger’s stunt may make him feel better about himself, and he probably did it to take some of the heat off of himself that was brought to bear because of the invitation, but it was ultimately unhelpful. Dr. Bollinger would have been better served by taking the high road rather than risk being seen as an uncultured American stooge insulting a Muslim leader. Better still would have been to have avoided inviting Ahmadinejad in the first place, rather than giving him the legitimacy an American university afforded him.
Reply to this Top
That is a ridiculous article... Obviously if Iran wanted to set up shop on campus like ROTC they wouldn't be allowed - your comparison is worthless
Reply to this Top
Dr. Bollinger treated Ahmedinejad with the contempt he deserves. The Iranian President was put on the defensive and made to look ridiculous. His stupid insistence that there was no homosexuality in Iran has made him a laughing stock. He has shown he is either a complete fool or a brazen liar. Well done Columbia for unmasking this petty and cruel dictator.
Reply to this Top
I think that in our society, it does sound ridiculous to hear someone say that there are societies in which homosexuality does not exist. And of course, I think that everyone knows that there isn't any society where everyone is heterosexual; I don't think that Mr. Ahmadinejad meant that there literally are 0 homosexuals in Iran. I do think that he, like a large number of people in certain societies, refuses to acknowledge its existence...his view is one that his contemptible in our society, but one that is largely accepted in Iran; a society that does not acknowledge any relationship outside of a male/female relationship. That reflects the different cultural attitudes between Iran and the West--of course, it's wrong to mistreat anyone for any reason; no one deserves to be socially ostracized, tortured, jailed, or murdered for their sexual orientation...however, of course, before we get on our high horse, let us not forget that our society is one that is not accepting of homosexual relationships. We acknowledge that everyone is not heterosexual, but we'd be foolish to say that our society is one that fully accepts homosexuality (i.e. the Matthew Shepard and the Brandon Teena murders). I do think that it's terrible that Mr. Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust. There seems to be a prevailing view in some societies which downplays the Holocaust; I think that Mr. Ahmadinejad was simply courting controversy and attention...and he certainly has gotten what he wanted.
Reply to this Top