Columbia’s Iranian Crisis: Day 2
The cameras, the protesters (this time right wing!), and the Iranian nutjob are all descending on Columbia like it's May 1968. The Spec's site is so deluged with traffic that it's not even working anymore (granted, this happens every few days). Read the Bwog's intense coverage here.
After the jump: various reactions to the beige-suited madman's upcoming visit.
Columbia President Lee Bollinger claims he's doing it for the students:
Columbia, as a community dedicated to learning and scholarship, is committed to confronting ideas--to understand the world as it is and as it might be. To fulfill this mission we must respect and defend the rights of our schools, our deans, and our faculty to create programming for academic purposes.
Meanwhile, right-wing politicos are having a field day, their fantasies of a dystopian liberal academia suddenly and miraculously fulfilled. Bill Kristol on Bollinger: "This is a liberal university president at his stupidest… American higher education… [is] friendlier to Ahmadinejad than to the U.S . military."
John McCain's take:
Rather than rolling out the red carpet for the leader of a terrorist-sponsoring regime, Columbia should be welcoming the Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) back on campus to honor the men and women who put their lives on the line every day defending our freedom.
And what do Columbia students have to say about the visit? Bleh. A statement signed by several student leaders contains the following:
The entire campus community must have the opportunity to actively engage President Ahmadinejad... so that we can achieve the high level of academic discourse that this campus deserves.
I can just imagine:
5,000 Columbia students: So, did the Holocaust happen?
M.A.: Nah. Probably not [big smile].
Now that's engagement.
We're gearing up for Monday, when we'll (somehow) be on the scene, reporting Koppel-style from the sidelines like it's Tehran 1979.
25 Comments | 
| 
Print This Post
Read more: Columbia, Iran, jacob being jewish, Lee Bollinger
Email – 
Search
About
Follow us on Twitter
Report a bug
Archives
RSS Feed
September 20th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
No surprise he chose Columbia, those spineless cowards hate the US. Fools, they’re the deformed bastards of the Ivy League.
September 20th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Bravo to a true Philosopher King, Lee C. Bollinger. I am not surprised that the loudest “patriots” who blast him for this move are also the weakest, as they would so easily abandon the principles upon which this nation thrives. Freedom of speech is useless for people with whom we agree, and I applaud Bollinger for his bravery and willingness to stand up to the choir of idiots that currently occupies so much of the national discourse.
September 20th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Any attempt by Columbia to stand up for free speech in light of how they treated the minutemen is a sad, craven farce. And lerner hall sucks.
September 20th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Right. Because *all* of Columbia forced the Minutemen off that stage. Dumbass.
September 20th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Stupid Columbians, do they even know they’re embarrassing an already morbid, looked-down upon school? Bollinger should be fired, he’s an idiot.
September 20th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
I found one instance when Bollinger did the noble thing: http://www.nysun.com/article/40142
It looks like he’s been whipped into giving in.
September 20th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
bollinger explained why the invitation last year was rescinded, namely that there was no time for q and a, which is an integral part of the process of free speech as a conversation. this time there will be.
honestly, i applaud bollinger for doing this. war happens when dipolmacy stops, and currently america has no formal dipolmatic ties with iran.
given that iran came to columbia about having this talk, i think some very interesting things may be said. perhaps of global significance.
and for all of you nay-sayers, sitting down with leaders from other nations is exactly what america needs. not the shoot from the hip strategy that got us into iraq.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Inviting an international psychopath like Ahmadinejad might be big news at Columbia, but it’s still not the #1 article on the Spectator.. yep, Idris “the National Enquirer rejected my writing” Leppla keeps getting beaten like a Brown protestor for her monumental ignorant rant. I love the absolute Columbia v. Barnard brutality going on.. classy.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:17 am
Fuck Columbia!
September 21st, 2007 at 1:21 am
@columbia ‘07 ….and fuck you too for your rambling statement ending with iraq..
September 21st, 2007 at 3:05 pm
One of the saddest facts I ever came across was revealed in President Truman’s investigation into america’s murder of 6 million Jews in WWII. The truth be know is that americans won the world through prescott bush and the blue chips strategy of paying for and organizing adolf hitlers political rise and the re-armament of post WWI Germany. Whoa, whoa my young Jewsih friend. Seek the truth and you shall find perspective that tears your heart out. Admittedly the rhetoric coming out of Iran is frightening to Jews and non Jews alike but have you listened to glenn beck at all. Fascists rule our planet. It’s so sad so many americans are so un-enlightened about their own satanic history because then your understanding of the current situation would be entirely different. Read, read , read your own President’s investigation. The reading will leave you crying, puking, shitting, pissing and contemplating suicide it is that sad.
September 21st, 2007 at 4:16 pm
“Bravo to a true Philosopher King, Lee C. Bollinger.
…
Freedom of speech…”
This isn’t about freedom of speech. Bollinger’s freedom to host this discussion isn’t at issue — what’s wrong is his dignification of a MONSTER. That he’s free to do this does not imply that it’s not a spectacularly tasteless mistake.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:37 pm
VT ‘06, this issue transcends the legal argument of Freedom of Speech. This is a question of pure philosophy: Does a community have the strength of character to patiently observe and analyze someone with whom they vehemently disagree, and can they make their own independent judgments based solely on a primary source? I hope my allusion to Plato was clear– as the leader of the University, President Bollinger is taking a brave and risky stand for the sanctity of the Academy. His decisions can not be based on popular opinion. Freedom of speech is not easy, but that’s the point– if we pick and choose the viewpoints we wish to hear, then the principle is nothing but a beautiful lie.
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Thank you Columbia ‘09.
September 24th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Written immediately after Ahmadinejad’s speech…but I’d've said basically the same thing prior to the speech:
Columbia ‘09, I’m all for those principles, but I still think Ahmadinejad’s appearance was less a free exchange of honest viewpoints than a photo op for a lunatic.
But I’m less pissed about the whole thing though after hearing Bollinger’s excoriation of Ahmadinejad.
September 24th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
P.S. LOL @ “We don’t have homosexuals in Iran”!
September 25th, 2007 at 2:28 am
First of all, the people who rushed the stage at the Minute Men event were less than 0.25% of the Columbia student body. It definitely was not an act committed or condoned by Columbia as a whole. You’ve only made yourself look ignorant.
Columbia has increased awareness of the human rights violations taking place in Iran by hosting this event and further exposed Ahmadinejad as a ridiculous dictator. A lot of good was done. As far as Columbia being looked down upon, the whole Ivy League is looked down upon by a lot of people because of snotty, elitist attitudes like those of the other Ivy League students defaming Columbia here.
September 25th, 2007 at 2:30 am
First of all, the people who rushed the stage at the Minute Men event were less than 0.25% of the Columbia student body. It definitely was not an act committed or condoned by Columbia as a whole. You’ve only made yourself look ignorant.
Columbia has increased awareness of the human rights violations taking place in Iran by hosting this event and further exposed Ahmadinejad as a ridiculous dictator. A lot of good was done. As far as Columbia being looked down upon, the whole Ivy League is looked down upon by a lot of people because of snotty, elitist attitudes like those of the other Ivy League students defaming Columbia here.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:02 am
Columbia ‘09, maybe if you had family members dying at the hands of Iraqi insurgents armed by Iranians you’d think differently.
But you’re just a smug, Ivy League little bitch.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:04 am
By the way, what the fuck? You suggest that his “viewpoint” is worthy of serious consideration. Don’t be a fucking idiot.
September 26th, 2007 at 7:47 am
@Navy Sailor: nothing beats the arrogant swaggering of a self-important military man. Did you eat too much spinach, today? While you might look at Ahmedinejad and only see Bluto after your Olive Oil, pretending that he doesn’t exist, and denying him his humanity (by pretending that he is some mysterious and corrupting voice that needs to be silenced), does not make him go away. I do think that the Columbia event was handled terribly, mainly because of Bollinger’s equivocations. But to suggest that the leader of an important country in the world, which has an impact on U.S. security, foreign policy, and world peace, should simply be silenced, as opposed to debated, is preposterous. You might think that your opinions are sacrosanct by virtue of your spiffy white uniform, and that your positions are morally unassailable, but it’s outrageously presumptuous of you to assume that Columbia ‘09 has no loved ones in the military or in Iraq. I for one have a close friend in Baghdad, and my best friend is currently stationed at Ft. Lewis, awaiting deployment. Columbia ‘09 argued, hardly smugly, an important point. It’s ironic that you accuse him of arrogance, only to go ahead and make several unfounded assumptions, throw a few insults, and place yourself in a position of intellectual and moral superiority. Smart people are not evil wizards; don’t fear them. They may seem to be chanting arcane incantations whenever they consult their books of “logic” and “philosophy” and “common sense,” but, in fact, they’re simply trying to engage in a conciliatory discourse whose aim is mutual understanding. Now fuck off and go swap the poop deck, you presumptive little cunt.
September 26th, 2007 at 7:50 am
*swab
September 26th, 2007 at 9:48 am
I guess, as a Dartmouth student, you’ve been habituated to the smugness. But rest assured, he’s a smug bitch. And so are you. Not to mention a blatant hypocrite.
By the way…you call Ahmadenijad’s appearance at Columbia “debate”?!
Enjoy relaxing in your ivory tower while I go work, bitch.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:38 am
@Navy Sailor: if smugness is self-satisfaction, who is smug? You, or me? I’m more than willing to accept that I’m very ignorant; I could hardly claim to know anything for sure. None of my opinions are fixed; the only thing of which I can be certain is the certainty that, at some point, a brief moment of enlightenment (so brief that it could hardly be called such) will show me some error in my thinking and nudge me in another, equally as misguided direction. I’m hardly satisfied. Let’s take a closer look at your statement: “maybe if you had family members dying at the hands of Iraqi insurgents armed by Iranians you’d think differently. But you’re just a smug, Ivy League little bitch.” You (a) assume that no Ivy League student has loved ones in Iraq, which is preposterous; (b) claim that you somehow possess true knowledge, or the correct opinion, by virtue of some special position, either your enlistment in the U.S. military or your connection to those enlisted; and (c) then go on to claim that somebody is smug simply because you don’t like their positions or the fact that they are enrolled at an Ivy League school. At Dartmouth, nearly 60% of the students receive financial aid; they’re hardly all silver-spoon Yankees, old-money elitists, or entitled new-money brats. If they were smug and self-satisfied, they wouldn’t be where they are. Granted, there are probably 20% who are in fact arrogant douchebags, 20% who are on their way to becoming such, and 20% of the 60% on financial aid who, upon arriving, become so enamoured by money and power that they would like to identify with the other forty percent. Does this invalidate Columbia ’09’s argument? Not at all. Does it make you seem like an ignorant asshole? Yes, it very much does. Frankly, I could care less about the fact that you think that you deserve special recognition for your role in the U.S. military. I worked my ass off to pull myself out of a backwards podunk town and get myself an education, with very little help from other people, and a lot of obstacles. It’s interesting that I don’t think that I’m entitled to any privileged position, whereas you think you have some God-given moral and intellectual superiority over all other people simply because, one sunny day, you mindlessly wandered into a U.S. Navy recruitment station. Am I a hypocrite for calling you names and insulting your intelligence? No. I’m insulting you because I think that you’re a fucking moron, not as a means of bolstering my argument.
September 1st, 2009 at 8:59 am
Certainly. I join told all above. We can communicate on this theme. Here or in PM.