Bat,

My comment about the Sun was not intended to discredit the paper, but simply to provide a context for its report. I did not say that the paper has “a large chip on its shoulder” generally. I said only that it has such a chip where Columbia is concerned. If you search the paper’s archives for articles about Columbia, you will see that almost all of them are critical and that the paper goes out of its way to attack President Bollinger whenever it can. Where two articles give apparently inconsistent accounts of the same set of facts, I think it is worth noting that one comes from a source with an agenda that its version of events serves.

The Sun genuinely is “a bit right wing” as I said. There is nothing wrong with that and I never said that there was. News outlets are entitled to take whatever editorial stance they choose. The Sun’s problem, as I see it, is that it willfully inserts its editorial position into what should be factual news coverage. I am equally disappointed when I see liberal media outlets doing the same thing, but our discussion was not about the media. It was about a particular event and you had referred to a particular story. I was addressing that particular story and its source, and was not trying to comment on journalism as a whole.

I’m not sure why you think the presence of a great journalism school should have played any role in Dean Anderson’s decision. Do you think the presence of a great medical school also should have played some role? I’m not saying that to be sarcastic; I presume that you don’t. I just don’t see a distinction between the two that makes one of them relevant and the other not. I presume this is my failing and not yours, so I hope you will be kind enough to explain.

Why don’t they see if they can track down Hitler and get him to introduce Ahmadinejad?

That would be quite a trick wouldn’t it?

Because Ahmadinejad’s views are repugnant, which is why it is baffling that Columbia University would give him a forum in which to air them.

Universities seem the ideal place to hear and debate repugnant views. The best way to fight such nonsense is to let it face public scruitiny.

I wonder if Columbia University would allow Ann Coulter to speak (uninterrupted.)

Rob,

So, you think university presidents should disallow speakers whose views differ from theirs, huh? Not a wise way to operate.

Columbia has America’s largest school of international affairs, and for the past several years it has brought several presidents, prime ministers, etc. to campus each fall during the opening of the U.N. general assembly to discuss issues relating to their countries.

Many students at the school are studying Middle East politics and history, human rights, national security, etc.. What better opportunity can they — and others interested in the subjects — have to learn about Iran’s stance than this? That’s why the dean invited Ahmadinejad.

Keep in mind that, unlike at the U.N., Ahmadinejad will be faced with questions from faculty and students (including Jews and Iranian expatriates) about his policies and beliefs. This is not going to be a propaganda stop.

The fact that Columbia’s president was caught by surprise is not important. Columbia is a huge university (21,000+ students, 4,000+ faculty, 10,000+ employees) and the president doesn’t make every decision personally. Deans can invite speakers without asking his permission first. This seems to have been a last-minute decision, and the dean surely had to act quickly.

Ed: I can’t speak for Rob, but here’s my two cents worth:

So, you think university presidents should disallow speakers whose views differ from theirs, huh? Not a wise way to operate.

If those speakers advocate terrorists or are sympathetic to terrorists when we are at war with those terrorists, my answer would be “Yes”.

Because Ahmadinejad’s views are repugnant, which is why it is baffling that Columbia University would give him a forum in which to air them.

I don’t know. My views are also repugnant, yet you’ve given me a forum to air them here.

Ann will be at Family Research Council,
2006 Values Voter Summit. $95 will get you in
for three days on theocracy.
Speakers James Dobson, Jerry Falwell,
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), and Reps. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.) and Mike Pence (R-Ind.).

Ann may give some more detailed instruction for blowing up newspapers and murdering Supreme Court Justices.

You can Do It For Love
You can Do IT For Money

So, you think university presidents should disallow speakers whose views differ from theirs, huh?

Ed,

Given the well-known leftward tilt of university presidents, administrators, and faculty, perhaps they should all be required to bring in speakers “whose views differ from theirs, huh?”

This story is on the website of Columbia’s student paper:

Ahmadinejad Will Not Speak at CU
By Amanda Erickson and Leora Falk
Issue date: 9/21/06 Section: News

* Print
* Email
* Article Tools

*
Page 1 of 1

A day after the University invited the Iranian president to speak at Columbia, University officials announced late this morning that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will not come to campus.

Dean of the School of International and Public Affairs Lisa Anderson invited Ahmadinejad to speak Wednesday morning, and he accepted Wednesday afternoon, Robert Garris, SIPA director of communications told Spectator.

But SIPA and University officials decided Thursday morning that it was not possible to coordinate the security precautions necessary to accommodate such a high profile guest under short notice.

“This time of year a number of world leaders do come to speak on campus on short notice. … It’s not unprecedented, but, obviously, the scale of security and logistical issues of this situation would have been much larger than is normal,” Garris said.

“The sequence of events was fast enough that we weren’t ready to check
with the World Leaders Forum staff before the invitation was issued,” he added.

According to Garris, one of SIPA’s Iranian student groups approached Anderson and asked that she invite the Iranian president to Columbia. The president of the group was not immediately available for comment.

As the news spread Thursday morning, pro-Israel student group LionPAC and others posted fliers throughout campus challenging students to protest the controversial leader’s visit.

“The world will be watching,” one flier read, “WHAT WILL YOU DO?”

Bat,

Are you saying that Columbia’s president is hypocritical because he isn’t acting the way a bunch of narrow-minded undergrads acted previously? If you want to accuse someone of having a double standard you have to compare two different actions taken by that same person (or entity). Comparing the actions of the university administration to those taken by students won’t do. With 21,000 students at Columbia, there are sure to be some who will protest almost anything controversial.

And I really don’t understand your point about security. Knowing ahead of time that Ahmadinejad was going to be at the U.N. (5 or 6 miles away) on Wednesday gave Columbia no reason to think it would need extra security on Friday. Even assuming campus security knew he would still be in town, they had no reason to think he would come to Columbia until the last minute.

Nixon, huh?

What ever became of Tricky Dick anyway?
Didn’t some of he and friends get some bad publicity or something?
Frank Wills?

Nixon’s the one!

Mahmoud is just here for propaganda purposes anyway.

I would like to associate myself with the comments made by our friend from the north.

Ed,

Actually, although I have lived in the Atlanta area for quite a number of years, I was born in New York and lived in the city and in the New Jersey suburbs all through adolescence. And I am familiar enough to know that the Washington Heights neigborhood which used to be home to the European refugee families, including my grandparents, is no longer safe for a teenager to roam during the daytime, never mind at night.

I’m not surprised that Secretary Paulson was a recent guest speaker at Columbia, although, despite his prior employment, I’d be surprised that much of the student body knew, or cared, who he is or what he actually does. Paulson is certainly an adult, but he is hardly known to be a conservative, and there is still a good deal of well-informed speculation as to why he actually took the Treasury job.

Still, in a sense, you make my point for me, if inadvertantly, for there is little doubt that there is clearly a bias against Republicans in general, and conservatives in particular, on most college and university campuses, including certainly, Columbia. When, for example, was there a protest against a liberal Democrat speaker at a mainline university, such as Columbia, for example? I couldn’t think of one either.

Finally, as to security, that responsibility for a visiting head of state would be primarily federal, with support from local and regional sources. As I said, I’m quite sure that the question of additional security for a trip to Columbia is merely a modestly gracious excuse offered by whoever actually overrode the Columbia initiative. Whether the decision was actually made in the White House, at the State Department, or possibly Gracie Mansion, be assured security could have been provided if necessary.

Ed: You omit the possibility that the Sun’s anti-Columbia stance is sourced only in partisanship. It might just be a rejection of the school’s far-left orientation. “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” The Sun is necessary to balance Columbia’s unbalanced nature. Doesn’t the Sun have the right to dissent?(cue Hillary screaming)

My apologies to Columbia’s president, Dr. Lee Bollinger, for whom my respect has just increased immeasurably.

Overruling a prominent dean, the president of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, yesterday withdrew an invitation to the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The dean of Columbia’s school of international and public affairs, Lisa Anderson, had independently invited Mr. Ahmadinejad to speak at the World Leader’s Forum, a year-long program that aims to unite “renowned intellectuals and cultural icons from many nations to examine global challenges and explore cultural perspectives.”

In a statement issued yesterday afternoon, Mr. Bollinger said he canceled Mr. Ahmadinejad’s invitation because he couldn’t be certain it would “reflect the academic values that are the hallmark of a University event such as our World Leaders Forum.”

Bollinger did agree that Ahmadinejad would be allowed to speak at a less prestigious forum, however. The “security” story had been put out by an assistant to Dean Anderson.

Dole…let’s see, is he the guy in the pocket of big tobacco, the guy who voted for all those tax increases, the one who cheated on his wife with the stewardess and the intern and got an divorce from his loving wife and left her with no child support?

No I did not vote for the boner pill guy.
I voted for the blue dress guy.

Woofie, can I sit next to you?

Ed: The NYT is at the bottom of the food chain, truthwise and patriotismwise.

That would justify editorializing against Columbia’s actions, but it doesn’t justify slanting news reports about the university to further the editors’ agendas. A report that boils down to “here’s what Columbia did today” is fine, but the Sun’s stories essentially say “here’s yet another absurdly leftist thing Columbia did”. It wouldn’t be hard to run articles that at least approximate neutrality, but the Sun deliberately takes sides instead. That would also be fine in a different kind of publication, but it has no place in news reporting.

Bat: Very good point!

MikeA: You see, the lie in the MSM is that the Republicans run everything because they keep doing that annoying thing of winning elections. The reality is that the Dems and the MSM set the tone for what the dialogue is in this country. Therefore, Conservate and Republican views are rightly described as “dissent” from the “mainstream’ view, which is what the MSM preaches every day and night. If you pay attention to the dialogue on Iraq, for instance, it is the case that the President should constantly have to prove his case, rather than the MSM should have to prove that the war isn’t justifiable. Same with the economy and tax cuts. The actual evidence isn’t what determines the national dialogue; it’s the lies of the MSM that set the tone. Two of many examples.

MikeA: Right you are! That should read: “…not sourced only in partisanship.”

Thanks.

threadjacker rbb: You lie again. You would never vote for a Republican. My standard is that Clinton should have been impeached and convicted, then thrown out on his lying ass, for lying to the American Public and taking campaign money from foreign sources. My standards are obviously higher than yours. Understand?

Ed: But lefties are absurd. They pose as being “for the people” but are really for totalitarian govt control. What could be more absurd than that?

That nattering nabob from Maryland had to early too as I recall.

Good for them. It was just for propaganda anyway.

The fact that "security" could not be properly arranged on such short notice seems like a rather odd excuse, given that the UN visit of the Iranian president has been well known for some time. Still, this in no way excuses the ill-advised invitation in the first place, nor does it excuse Columbia's all-too-familiar definition of free speech, diversity, and open exchange of ideas.

At last year's commencement ceremony at Columbia, Senator John McCain, the commencement speaker, was nearly drowned out by the student protesters, while over at The New School, president Bob Kerrey had to rescind an invitation to McCain because of campus protests.

McCain is hardly a conservative, but the distinction between a conservative and a Republican is obviously a difficult one for the self-styled academic cognoscenti.

Columbia senior Laura Cordetti, a protest organizer, came up with the inane phrase, "John McCain Does Not Speak For Us," which certainly calls into question the value of a Columbia undergraduate education, as the speaker is not chosen to speak "for" the students, but to them… a distinction apparently lost on Cordetti and other Columbia students, faculty and staff.

Nor is this Columbia University's first foray into the realm of repression. As reported here, in 1998,

A student group, which brought some notable conservative speakers to Columbia for a conference on, of all things, the suppression of conservative speech on College campuses, was met with violent student protest. The Columbia Administration responded by shutting down the conference. The message was clear: dissenting opinions are unwelcome at Columbia.

There is a certain cute adolescence about doing those things which are patently ill-advised, but which challenge adult authority and wisdom. Most of us outgrow this tendency. Those who don't seem to gravitate toward places like Columbia, which has a rich history of encouraging self-righteous childishness.

Ed,

Your sarcastic little screed about patriotism and the President is exactly the sort of tiresome self-indulgence that I was hoping you'd manage to avoid. Your pique, sadly is palpable. And while it may serve to reinforce your credentials among your fellow travellers, it does you no honor here.

You can sniff about the Sun being a "a bit right wing with a large chip on its shoulder" all you'd like, but while the Sun's circulation and revenue numbers are increasing, those of the once-upon-a-time "Paper of Record" have been in a steady decline for quite a while, indicating, if nothing else that "Pinch," Bill Kellor, and the boys and girls at the Times are the ones out of touch with their market. (Parenthetically, a report from Reuters notes that NYT stock lost nearly 5% in overnight trading after the company announced earnings estimates of 8 to 10 cents per share. Analysts had expected earnings of nearly twice that amount. Company officials blamed poor ad revenues, which are reflective of lower circulation.)

If the NYT was the paragon of reporting its diminishing legion of supporters would like to think it is, without all that bias you decry in the Sun, perhaps it would not be so selective in the stories it covers. Such as the anti-Ahmadinejad/pro-Israel rally held in its own backyard, by some 35,000 people, and featuring such a diverse list of luminaries including Alan Dershowitz, Ambassador John Bolton, and Nobel Prize winner Elie Weisel. None of which, as of last night, had been reported by the Times.

The Times will likely also get a chance to defend its violation of the federal Espionage statutes for its publication of Top Secret materials despite pleas from officials not to do so. That DoJ investigation is already underway, and prospects are not good for NYT personnel.

As for Columbia itself, it is worth remembering that the government headed by President Ahmadenijad has been less than accomodating about freedom of the press of late, closing down newspapers, as reported by Reporters Without Borders. Columbia is renown for its J-school, a fact which ought to have been considered by Dean Anderson before the invitation to Ahmadinejad was proffered.

Don't mention it r108. While I have you here, I'm puzzled by your question to Ed about the Sun's right to dissent. Ed seems a very even handed fellow in welcoming the expression of all sorts of views and doesn't appear as interested in stifling dissenting opinions as some others here might be…am I missing something?

My issue isn't so much with the "leftist" part as with the "absurdly" part. Calling something leftist can be factual, but calling it absurd is purely judgmental.

With that, I'm afraid I need to stop posting for today. I will return tomorrow if there are more comments, but I just don't have the time today.

Cheers, everyone.

rbb: So? That was over 50 years ago.

WHAAAA?

Dude (as you like to say), the guy is lying in his campaign literature this year, this month this week this day, this hour…well I don't know about this hour, since he's been busted and all.

Wither thou goest O once proud gop?

rbb: What never surprises me about you is your hypocrisy. When I bring up Kerry's lies about Vietnam, or Clinton's lies about almost everything(including burning churches in Arkansas when he was a teenager, a total lie), you urge me to move on, because that happened so long ago. This thing you are using to smear a Republican is far older than anything from Clinton or Kerry. Why so excited? Could it be because you have nothing else but smear? But then, I already knew that. Again, I ask: What was the relevance of this guy's service in Korea to today's situation?

Anything? Anything?

Threadjack from nowhere. When you go to bat against the lying Dems/MSM, you might get my attention. Otherwise, you are talking to yourself.

Still can't answer the question, can you?

If this really was a lie, and not a very old memory, what is the consequence? We already know the disastrous consequences of Clinton's and Kerry's lies.

can't

RBB, Thanks for filling me in on Robert Montjoy. Before this, I had no idea he even existed.

I'm still baffled why, in a world where politicians left and right, routinely lie about their past, you think there's anything interesting about this.

You must have one boring life.

rbb: Here's another question you won't answer: Who did you vote for in '96? The real war hero and truthteller, or the liar? How honest are you, really? 'Fess up; you were just sniping; you don't care about any Republicans because of your partisan bias. If you wanted the truthful, honest man, you had to have voted for Dole in '96.

"Let he who is free of sin cast the first stone."

How did you vote in '68 and '72?

…the guy in the pocket of big tobacco…

You mean like tobacco and oil millionaire Al Gore? Did you vote for him? All that really matters to you is party affiliation.

This thread is about Columbia asking a terrorist dictator to speak at their school, which is renowned for their leftie slant. Why are you trying to distract from that by personally attacking others who have nothing to do with Columbia's treachery in wartime?

If, as you claim, you are ex-military, you should be aware of what "need to know" means. Were you lying about your military service?

Is that a denial? If so, I understand your ignorance.

If it amuses you; I thought you claimed that once, a long time back, but if you didn't, my apologies for thinking that you have any knowledge or authority to speak on military matters.
If you have indulged in enough smear, let's get back on topic.

"I accept your apology of ignorance.

Nope. It was an apology for a bad memory. You speak so authoritatively about military people(Murtha, as I remember), I guess I thought you had some knowledge in the area. You don't.

Why not have this guy speak here?
We are going to have to talk to him sooner or later.

With some very powerful and decisive weapons, unless he suddenly becomes sane.

The perfect leftie peacenik fantasy. You forgot the lollipops and moonbeams(and the unicorns, as well)

If bush is too big of a pussy to face his enemies face to face all we are going to get is more fear mongering and stupid sloganizing."

Gosh, is the President a warmongering cowboy or a "pussy"? Inquiring minds want to know.

Are you people insane??? I turned my attention to other things after my last post, but I have received about 50 emails since then saying there were new messages. My curiosity got the better of me, but when I looked at the thread it had degenerated into partisan mud-throwing on a topic completely unrelated to where we began. How did this happen?

As to the one pertinent post:

Bat,

Thanks for clarifying. I understand your point now. It would indeed be inappropriate for the journalism school to invite Ahmadinejad to speak. Which may be part of the reason why it didn't. The school of international affairs did. Whether you consider that appropriate or not should have no relation to the fact that Columbia also teaches journalism. Would you see the invitation any differently if Columbia didn't have a journalism program? I doubt that you would, which is why I see the J-school as a non-issue in this controversy.

There is an error many people make re: situations like this, and I'm afraid you have made it in your posts. An invitation to speak on campus is not an endorsement by the university of the speaker's views, nor is it even a sign that the university agrees with those views. It is simply a request that he present them for discussion. If Columbia had offered Ahmadinejad an award or an honorary degree it would have been endorsing his views, but just inviting him to speak is a very different matter.

I was a freshman during the Iran-Iraq war. Someone at Columbia arranged an on campus debate between the Iranian and Iraqui amassadors to the U.N. The invitation did not suggest Columbia endorsed either side's position, but the logic many people employ would say that it was endorsing *both* of their positions — which is logically impossible. The truth is that the university endorsed neither side.

One more point. Columbia's policy on invited speakers is quite simple. Any faculty member or student can invite a speaker of their choice, and the invitee will be allowed to speak provided that the organizer can reserve a room (and pay for it in most instances) and make whatever other arrangements — including security — are necessary. End of story. There is no central office that sends out invitations, and there is no administrator who decides whom to invite. This means there are more than 25,000 people authorized to bring speakers to campus. The idea that such an invitation means the entire university endorses the speaker's views is absurd, and so is the idea that the president is — or even should be — held responsible for each invitation.

Ed, if you have a moment to go through this thread, you will see the point at which, and commentor who, it derailed into non-related slingery. realitydenyingboob is quite good at that. Your point is in the black, a school whose speciality is Foriegn Relations and Journalism would, by necessity, have controversial speakers. My point is that Ahamadinejad should have been cuffed and frog-marched into a Federal holding facility for the crimes he committed against American civilians in 1979 and 1980. Crimes and actions he bragged about for 20 years and now denies, using the venerable "evil twin" defense. The graduates of Columbia run the gamut of ideology and I have know several, from both sides of the political aisle. Though the current crop of journalism grads do appear to lean towards leftardism.

WARNING: THREAD HIJACK HERE

Please skip over this comment if you're easily distracted but I just read this article and found it quite relevant to SA discussions generally. Sorry for the interruption.

2Hotel9,

It seems you have me at a disadvantage. I thought the CIA had concluded that Ahmadinejad was not among the militants who held the hostages.

I hope you weren't serious about taking Ahmadinejad into custody. As a head of state visiting in his official capacity, he has diplomatic immunity. Further, the 1947 United Nations headquarters agreement obligates the U.S. to allow heads of state — even those who would otherwise be ineligible for a visa — into the country to conduct business at the UN.

The man bragged, at every opportunity for 20 years, about his leadership roll in the Tehran Embassy takeover and subsequent hostage holding. Then, all of a sudden, he is as pure as the driven. Please. Next you are going to tell me you believe anything put out by the PuzzlePalace.

Bezu:

I agree that Nicholas DeGenova is a nut. He is just one of over 4,000 faculty members, and to generalize from him to the entire group is not reasonable.

I have no idea why you think DeGenova is "one of Columbia's most pre-eminent international professors":

1. He's not "pre-eminent". He's an assistant professor, just a few years out of grad school. He's still years away from his tenure review. But for that one incident, he would be as obscure as any other young assistant professor at Columbia.

2. He's also not an "international professor". He teaches anthropology and has never been a member of the international affairs faculty. His rants were his own personal politics and had nothing to do with his research or teaching.

It is fair to condemn him for what he said, but not to condemn his entire university.

Bezu,

It's amazing how certain you seem of your beliefs about Columbia. You obviously never spent any time there.

Your claim that "Di Genova's protest and rant was [sic]enthusiastically led by 30 members of the Columbia faculty" is false. Other faculty participated in the teach-in, but none of them said anything so outrageous, none of them knew what DeGenova was going to say and none of them endorsed his diatribe after the fact. Some people in the audience cheered and applauded, but all the other faculty present distanced themselves from his comments. Besides, by definition the one who "led" DeGenova's rant was DeGenova.

The school of international affairs has never "held events condemning the state of Israel". It has held events at which individual speakers condemned Israel, but it has held many at which speakers praised Israel, too. The school would never sponsor an event such an overtly political agenda, regardless of what that agenda might be.

I challenge you to find any evidence supporting your claims about Lisa Anderson — especially the claim that she believes we got what we deserved on 9/11. I will concede that she may be a critic of Israel and the US, but there's nothing wrong with being critical of a government's actions. I also note that she is plenty critical of our adversaries as well.

I don't know what Gil Anidjar says or believes about Israel, but he is entitled to his opinions.

You correctly note that Joseph Massad "emerged as the central figure in a series of student complaints over anti-Israel bias and classroom bullying." You fail to note that dozens of students who were present when he supposedly did this have sworn that it never happened.

The professors you list at the end of your post are all liberals, to be sure. They are also all among the most distinguished figures in their fields. If you think hiring distinguished professors makes a university "a national scandal" just because you disagree with their politics then your priorities need some adjustment.