Columbia University’s 14 Minutes of Fame

Joe Loconte reflects on Columbia University's decision to host a speech by the Iranian President.

THE DECISION TO INVITE THE PRESIDENT OF IRAN to speak at New York’s Columbia University has been defended as a shining example of the school’s climate of “open exchange.” University officials insisted ad nauseum that they were upholding the principles of “dialogue,” the “free exchange of ideas,” and the importance of “intellectual debate.” Columbia president Lee Bollinger, who strenuously defended the invitation as “the right thing to do,” lauded the university’s “deep commitment to free speech and debate.”

Mr. Bollinger no doubt hopes that his 14-minute introduction deploring the rhetoric and behavior of his honored guest, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, will soften the criticism of Columbia as the latest safe haven for Islamic terrorists. Mr. Bollinger’s remarks were certainly deserved, and he has achieved his 14 minutes of fame for delivering them. But the consequences of that achievement could prove toxic—in Iran, the Middle East and beyond.

One obvious problem with the university’s stage play is that, by its own standards of acceptable speech, it has hurled itself into a tar pit of hypocrisy. This is the same university, after all, that has banned the presence of the U.S. military’s recruiting program, the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps, or ROTC. Their argument is that the university forbids discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion and sexual orientation. It therefore finds the military’s posture toward gays—don’t ask, don’t tell—to be a clear-cut violation of its principles.

Well, now. It is widely known, and widely confirmed by human rights groups, that the Iranian regime treats homosexuality with violent contempt. Under its Shari’a law, individuals suspected of being gay are subject to arrest, imprisonment and execution. At yesterday’s event, Mr. Ahmadinejad was asked why his country executed homosexuals. Here was his answer:

“In Iran we don’t have homosexuals…In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don’t know who’s told you that we have this.”

We also know—as General David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, recently reminded us—that Iran is fomenting terrorist violence in Iraq with arms and financial support. Gen. Petraeus accuses Iran of seeking to “create a Hezbollah-like force” in Iraq to extend Tehran’s malicious influence in the region. There can be little doubt that Iran’s proxy war in Iraq has caused the deaths of many U.S. soldiers and the suffering and death of countless Iraqi civilians.

Here, then, is the moral reasoning of Columbia University, a logic with more twists than a New York pretzel: The U.S. military, which defends America’s democratic freedoms, is banned from campus because it discriminates against gays. But the president of an extremist regime that makes homosexuality a capital crime, a regime which is killing American soldiers trying to defeat extremism, gets a red-carpet invitation. It reminds me of an old Groucho Marx joke:

“Here are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others.”

The other problem with the school’s hosting of Ahmadinejad is its hopelessly blinkered view of free speech. Like most liberal and secular institutions, it assumes that democratic rights can be exercised without any real sense of civic responsibilities. The result is that it turns free speech into an absolute, unqualified right—a cosmic trump card.

Abe Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, got it right when he called Ahmadinejad’s visit “a perversion of the concept of freedom of speech.” What are the obligations of universities when it comes to promoting, or marginalizing, ideologies of hate? Iran is a state sponsor of international terrorism. Its president convenes conferences denying the Holocaust. He and other state leaders have boasted openly about the destruction of Israel (and America). As the Iranian president told CNN:

“And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism.”

When asked point blank at yesterday’s event whether his government intended to annihilate the Jewish state, Mr. Ahmadinejad flatly refused to answer the question.

It should have come as no surprise. “There’s no requirement, no moral imperative, to give him a platform that he will not give in Tehran,” Foxman said. He was joined by New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. The “healthy exchange of differing ideas,” she said, “should not include state-sponsored terrorism and hate speech.”

The civil libertarians at Columbia and elsewhere grow livid at remarks like this, but only because they’ve forgotten the moral foundations of free speech in a free society. In his Letter Concerning Toleration, John Locke pushed the envelope for the rights of speech and conscience in 17th century Europe. He assailed church and state authorities who would “forbid the preaching or professing of any speculative opinions.” But Locke never divorced a person’s natural rights from his moral obligations to God and to his neighbor. He strongly opposed speech that showed contempt for the human rights of others and the civic peace of the commonwealth. Those who would “establish dominion over others” or seize their goods, he said, “have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate.”

Should they be tolerated by the modern university? There is surely a cost involved in giving a platform to Ahmadinejad’s brand of Islamic extremism—a cost that Columbia University refused to even contemplate. Instead, university elites talked condescendingly of their critics, as if their decision to host the moral equivalent of Adolf Hitler, circa 1938, was a no-brainer. “This is the right thing to do,” insisted Mr. Bollinger. “And it is required by the existing norms of free speech.”

Huh? What imaginary “norms” of existing speech codes give their blessing to a global infomercial for anti-Semitic hate-mongering? What tortured principle demands that academic institutions engage in “dialogue” with political leaders who vow the destruction of another sovereign state?

By handing this religious demagogue a microphone, by giving him an international audience to defend his country’s “rights” to nuclear energy against the Great Satan—which he invoked repeatedly—the university granted him exactly what he wanted: a renewed measure of status and respectability for his views. “The Iranian president had the microphone, unmolested, for the best part of an hour,” writes TIME magazine’s Tony Karon. “Playing the nuclear card as an expression of Iranian national pride has always been part of his domestic political game, and the breathless television coverage his visit has prompted in the U.S. won’t do his domestic prospects any harm.”

Sometimes the most virtuous response to ideologues who exult in repression and murder is not to give them more air time, but less. Mr. Bollinger and Columbia University got their 14 minutes of fame. Time will help us decide if it was worth it.

Joe Loconte is a columnist for BritainandAmerica.com and a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. His most recent book is The End of Illusions: Religious Leaders Confront Hitler’s Gathering Storm.

Comments

[Steevo]

Iran also stones to death men and woman for being adulterers. And very recently the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour attended a meeting chaired by Cuba, in Tehran held to redefine and relativize human rights in accordance with "cultural diversity." While Arbour sat in the front row listening to Ahmadinejad, some Iranians were being made ready to be publicly hanged - 21 prisoners were executed the next day.

Not only is Iran supplying arms and financial support but also its Qod agents are in Iraq and some have been captured: high ranking officers at that. And members of the Iranian-backed Special Groups are smuggled in.

This is the height of hypocrisy, undermining to the grossest extent the moral responsibilities free speech relies on. Columbia doesn't invite people who have immigrated from nations with repressed rights to speak of the injustices associated with non-free speech.

[David]

But on the other hand, he got absolutely and hilariously crucified by one of the people attending, which I always think is the best way to deal with people like this.

[American Interests]

He also got hammered by the University President. At the end of the day it clearly demonstrated how deluded Ahmadinejad is. So lets have more research on the holocaust to once and for all confirm how wrong the Iranian President is on this issue alone.

[Mike A]

It was, of course, a good thing. He got laughed at openly.

[Ami]

I would suggest that Lee Bollinger got in over his head, and realized that he made a tremendous error by inviting Ahmandinejad. It was an even worse decision to fling insults at a "guest in your house." Bollinger came away looking rude and small.

Bollinger should have made his speech before the invitation was extented, and listed his opinions as reasons for not inviting the little Iranian fruitcake. Insulting Ahmandinejad at the event made him look like the victim. I don't care how many points Bollinger scored, it was a little too little too late.

Now we can only hope that this exercise will result in some alumni donations drying up and Bollinger being fired for harming the integrity of Columbia University, as if that hadn't happened back in the 60's.

[Andy]

He made himself look ridiculous by scoring some massive own goals. Why does he say that the slaughter of 6 million Jews needs more research? To find ways of blaming Jews for what happened perhaps? So Iran has no homosexuals... is that because they're all hanging from a noose? He doesn't need Lee Bollinger to crucify him, he does a good job himself.

[Edward]

I completely disagree. The question is, who decides what views are acceptable to allow to be expressed and what aren't. You may say that "libertarians" have forgotten the moral founding of free speech. You seem to have forgotten the meaning of freedom.

Absolutely the best thing to do was to humiliate this man in debate and dialogue and demonstrate he is far from the demi-god many wish to make him out to be.

[atheling]

Bollinger was engaging in damage control. Columbia was flooded with protesting emails and phone calls. No doubt he was worried about all the alumni who threatened to never give money to them again.

Columbia U has a history of cozying up to unsavory characters. In the 1930's they invited a senior official from Hitler's Party to speak.

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/42946.html

Columbia U's hypocrisy is an example of what's wrong with western academia. The (poison) ivy league schools today do not teach. They indoctrinate.

[JF]

Edward,

That would have been a valid point if there had been debate and dialogue. Apparently you didn't watch events as they actually happened, as no person who did could have labeled that event as an interaction of any sort. No point was countered, no question was answered.

To answer your question, every nation creates its own laws to determine what is acceptable and what is not. In many countries, incitement to murder is viewed as a crime, not a simple expression of free speech. In countries in which free speech allows incitement to murder, citizens with common sense are equally welcome to condemn such incitement and demand retribution against institutions that encourage such speech. You seem to overlook the fact that Columbia accepts federal funds, which subjects it to their ultimate paymasters (the taxpaying citizens).

Columbia is not subject to libertarian protection because it rejects libertarian ideology. Columbia has no problem welcoming dictators and is equally comfortable banning the US armed forces.

Once you do your homework on the facts, I would be interested in hearing your revised argument--if you have one.

[Andy]

This 'finding the root causes of' 9-11 / Holocaust Ahmadinejad talks of ultimately has one motive - find an easy target (USA, Jews) to blame. Same merry-go-round. Ahmadinejad is becoming more and more of a bad joke with every nauseating cliche.

[Andy]

This 'finding the root causes of' 9-11 / Holocaust Ahmadinejad talks of ultimately has one motive - find an easy target (USA, Jews) to blame. Same merry-go-round. Ahmadinejad is becoming more and more of a bad joke with every nauseating cliche.

[Libertoryan]

There were people outside shouting 'Ahmedinejad is bad but Bush is worse'. These people have no idea do they?

[mamapajamas]

Am I the only one who noticed this... that right after Iwannajihad made the claim that there were no homosexuals in Iran, he started into a diatribe about the death penalty in the US? It looked like he was changing the subject, but to ME it looked like he was defending executing homosexuals. He was saying, "We don't have homosexuals because we execute them... don't you execute dangerous criminals here? Etc etc etc..." And I would bet any odds that this is what he was actually doing.

And the audience gave him an ovation for that because his shifty wording made it sound like he was excoriating the death penalty when he wasn't.

[Steevo]

Here's an interesting take about Ahmadinejad's visit and some questions the students *should have* asked, from Haider Ajina at Gateway Pundit:

Ahmadinejad said in the speech to Friday Prayers leaders from across his country:“Our revolution’s main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi.”

Who is Imam Almehdi?

What has to happen before Almehdi returns?

What is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad doing for the return of Almehdi?

When is Armageddon coming and what is he doing to prepare his country for it?

[Edward]

JF - you're right, I haven't seen it. If there was insufficient debate and opportunity to engage/criticise Ahmadinejad then that's wrong. The solution, however - and where you seem to betray your true, anti-freedom pro-censorship colours - is to criticise Columbia not for trying to have some dialogue, but for not doing it properly so that his views were properly debated down.

Incidentally, there's not necessarily any need for Ahmadinejad to actually counter the points to be beaten in debate - his wilful evasiveness is probably even more powerful.

And, as an aside, it's shameful that the US military is "banned" from campus. This does show their hypocrisy perfectly clearly. The solution, however, is not to ban everyone, but to let the military back on campus.

[JF]

Edward,

I know it's tempting to jump to Columbia's defense, as on the face of it, debate and dialogue is an attractive proposition. But Columbia has a long history of allowing only debate and dialogue of the Left while suppressing any expression of conservative ideas. For example, not long ago, a leader of an anti-illegal immigration group known as the Minutemen came to speak about his ideas on border enforcement. Some radical left-wing students stormed the stage and the even was shut down minutes into its open, and the students suffered no consequences.

In context, Columbia's decision to invite Ahmadinejad is just one more expression of the extreme left to embrace dictators and thugs and the idea that America is evil. Call my disgust at that "censorship" if you like, but I see no reason to give Ahmadinejad a platform any more than I see the possibility of enlightenment by listening to Mugabe or Hitler. When is Iran going to give a platform to Bush, my friend? For that matter, when is Columbia going to give a platform to Bush?

I think we all know the answer to that, and that is the crux of my point.

[mamapajamas]

This isn't a matter of "free speech" at all.

The 1st Amendment, which defines free speech, religion, press, and assembly, says, in its entirety:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So where is Congress making a law here on whether or not Iwannajihad can or can not speak? I don't see any Congressional involvement at all. The people DO have the right to a say so, though.

Yes, while in the US Iwannajihad can say whatever his little heart desires. However, we are not required to provide a podium for him to speak from.

Bollinger's rude introduction says to me, "I think you're a crud of such a low level that you shouldn't be listened to, but I am nevertheless providing you with a stage to be heard." There is an intellectual and logical disconnect there. Why provide a podium if the subject of the diatribe isn't worth listening to? The answer is, of course, that he was nailed by the people with the funding for the college, and had to put on a show of opposition.

Further, Bollinger is a professor who specializes in the 1st Amendment, and who made the claim that it was "a 1st Amendment issue" about inviting Iwannajihad. It is NOT a 1st Amendment issue for the reasons I gave and as you can see by the text of the 1st Amendment. Congress did not take any action on this speech thingy at all.

What this does is create great fear in me that a man who is supposedly a "specialist" on the 1st Amendment could so badly misread so very direct and logical a statement as the 1st Amendment.

And THAT scares the hell out of me!

[atheling]

mamapajamas:

Right on.

Bollinger is as much a proponent of free speech as Ahmadinejad is.

Besides, the Constitution applies to American citizens, not foreigners, and especially not to enemies of America.

Bollinger and his ilk have yet to show that they extend the free speech to anyone that opposes their leftist ideologies: hate America, hate Bush, hate Christians, hate conservatives.

[Steve]

Columbia University claims they are America’s best and brightest?

Did you see the way they applauded Ahmadenijad?

They are just a bunch of filthy Little Eichmanns.

Too bad that Cho Seung-hui didn’t go to Columbia University!

[Steve]

Columbia University claims they are America’s best and brightest?

Did you see the way they applauded Ahmadenijad?

They are just a bunch of filthy Little Eichmanns.

Too bad that Cho Seung-hui didn’t go to Columbia University!

[Steve]

Columbia University claims they are America’s best and brightest?

Did you see the way they applauded Ahmadenijad?

They are just a bunch of filthy Little Eichmanns.

Too bad that Cho Seung-hui didn’t go to Columbia University!

[Steve]

Columbia University claims they are America’s best and brightest?

Did you see the way they applauded Ahmadenijad?

They are just a bunch of filthy Little Eichmanns.

Too bad that Cho Seung-hui didn’t go to Columbia University!