curious to see what you think....lots to talk about with this one.
26 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I totally admire Columbia for inviting President Ahmadinejad to speak. Regardless of his extremist beliefs, education is about acquiring knowledge. And what better way to acquire knowledge than to listen to a speech by the president of a controversial nation? The fact that he represents all that America fights against makes the experience even better. In order to make educated decisions about politics, young and old voters alike need to be exposed to the unfiltered beliefs of countries like Iran. It's imperative that we step outside our nation's patriotic slogans and view the world from all angles possible. Columbia recognized this, and thus provided a once in a lifetime opportunity for participants. However, I do think that Bollinger's introduction was hostile and unnecessary. Obviously he was on the defensive due to all the criticism about his decision to invite the President in the first place, so it seems he felt the need to confirm to the world (and himself) his staunch nationalism. But honestly, the purpose of inviting the President of Iran to Columbia was to educate people about the country, not about the personal beliefs of pretentious Mr. Bollinger. As Mr. Ahmadinejad said, he should have let the audience form their OWN opinions. Bollinger really misrepresented American hospitality, and should be embarrassed.
I think it was very bold of Columbia to invite President Ahmadinejad to speak. But in doing so, I think that the school, especially Mr. Bollinger should have shown him more respect. It is contradictory to invite someone to speak, and then to insult them in the way that Bollinger did. I think it was advantageous for Ahmadinejad to express his irrational so that people can learn and understand what kind of a man he is and what he stands for. I am however extremely surprised in President Ahmadinejad's distorted view of the world and of his own country. The fact that he is in the denial of the Hollocaust is astonishing. He denies that there are homosexuals in Iran without providing efficient substantiation. This reflects his prejudice views. Ahmadinejad is not popular in his own country, but he is popular in other Islamic countries outside of Iran where an anti-American sentiment is prevalent because he stands up to the US and is brave enough to challenge our country, and that is exactly what he did when speaking at Columbia. He is admired by other countries for this audacity, but it is hard to believe that anyone could idolize a man who denies such important historical and factual events. I find it interesting that President Bush did not want Ahmadinejad near Ground Zero because of the satisfaction that it would bring him to see the destruction that had been caused to our country.
WOW!!! This might be in the top five most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Bollinger was definitely out of line but as the same time so was Ahmadinejad. They both had constructive points but were so beyond prepostrous that it became hard to fathom. The ridicule of this matter is beyond belief. Bollinger did show poor hospitality to his guest but I felt as if there was also a need to retaliate. Bollinger really couldnt not stand back and take harsh, demoralizing criticism about his country. I also believe however that Ahmadinejad had no idea what he was talking about and was extremely off topic. The purpose to bring him to Columbia is to expand knowledge of his country but he did nothing but belittle Americans and criticize us. I acknowledge there are a couple of statements which he said are true but only few. His hollocaust statement was so farfetched and I must agree that there really was no point in inviting him. He provided no helpful background about his country but then again he is arguably the most controversial president. In my opinion he is the most insane president. Like i said before, WOW!!!
Hm...I really can't decide who is dumber: Bollinger or Ahmadinejad? Although if I had to choose, I'd probably go with the latter. In my mind, the problem with Bollinger is not the fact that he invited Ahmadinejad to speak in the first place. In fact, I think that it was a pretty interesting idea--hearing his policies and ideas first hand must have been a once in a lifetime experience for the Columbia students. Rather, the problem lies in how Bollinger approached the situation. He misrepresented our country when he verbally attacked Ahmadinejad before he even began to speak. It was rude and childish. Even though I completely agree with everything that Bollinger said, the point of Ahmadinejad's speech was to educate and inform the students--not to put someone else's ideas into their heads. I think that Bollinger is simply trying to appease everyone. As soon as people became upset with his decision to invite the Iranian president, he became a different person. If no one were to have complained, I'm sure that Bollinger would have acted a lot more civil, but he is trying to protect his position at the university. On the other hand, Ahmadinejad is just ignorant. The Holocaust is just a theory? OK, well then how does he explain all of the concentratoin camps, video footage, and countless other sources of evidence? There are zero homosexuals in Iran? Hard to believe. He should stop trying to deny these things just because they are in his interest. If he accepted that the Holocaust was a truism, he would have no case that the Jews don't deserve Israel. Also, he tried to avoid many controversial questions, sometimes even blatantly lying. For example, when asked if he thought Israel deserved to be a destroyed, he answered that there are plenty of Jews living peacefully in his country and that the Jews are his friends. Although I vehemently hate his ideas, Ahmadinejad did have a point when characterized Bollinger's harsh criticisms as "unfriendly treatment," especially to a guest. So, which is worse: appeasement and rudeness or ignorance and hate? Once again, I choose the latter.
I think Bollinger's opening statement to Ahmadinejad was really offensive since Columbia had invited him to speak. It was a great idea to bring Ahmadinejad to present his views that we may hear them straight from the source. But both Bollinger and Ahmadinejad were extremely hypocritical. Bollinger praised himself and the university for being so noble to invite the president of Iran, but he continued to verbally attack and accuse him. How can he say he advocates freedom of speech when he was constantly attacking Admadinejad, which would definitely influence students' opinions? If the purpose of bringing Admadinejad to speak was to inform people, it was completely unnecessary to begin by calling him stupid and petty. Although Bollinger was very hostile to him, Admadinejad answered questions irrelevantly and hypocritically. By saying Jews live peacefully in Iran and that the Holocaust never occurred simply goes against fact and documented history. And stating that there are no homosexuals in Iran is absolutely ridiculous. However, it has to be considered that Iran is a whole different culture with a very different set of beliefs. Ahmadinejad had made statements that seemed ridiculous and uncomprehendable, but that's because we view it from an American point of view. It may be that Iranians truly believe there are no homosexuals in their country or that Israel should not be recognized by them. I think it must be taken into account that Iranians view Americans as hypocritical and backward just as we see Iranians.
it is so important that we respect freedom of speech, whether or not people are saying what we want to hear. in this regard, ahmadinejad's visit to columbia was a wonderful idea. hearing ideas from different societies makes us question our own beliefs and we are better for the experience. it's hard to believe some people are so bigoted. not only ahmadinejad for denying the presence of gays in iran and the existence of the holocaust, but also bollinger for labeling and dismissing ahmadinejad and his ideas. ahmadinejad pointed out how hypocritical the us is in some regards and i think he had a valid point. we are in a "war against terrorists" but isn't murdering innocent iraqis terrorism? we deffinetly need to learn to see our own flaws as a nation if we are going to judge others. i also have a question as to bollinger's intentions. i got the sense that ahminadinejad's invitation was columbia attempting to look good. a sort of "look at how much we support freedom of speech, aren't we just swell?!" bollinger's dispicable introduction leaves me with a sense that his intentions were not pure. he did not meet ahmadinejad with an open mind... which is what everyone deserves, especialy someone we accuse of bigotry.
I agree with Allie's (and everyone else's) point of view concerning Ahmadinejad. Obviously, he is astonishingly ignorant and narrow minded. He is trying to change history to support his own ambitions, which is just rediculous. Every time he claims there are no homosexuals in Iran or that the holocaust didn't happen he is merely making himself less credible and more of a joke. People are going to have a hard time taking this man seriously as the leader of a nation when he is so obviously dillusional. I think Sal is totally right when she says that this was a quintessential display of the American ideal of free speech. But I don't really follow her suspicions towards the primary purpose of having the president speak. I think free speech and education was the initial basis for making this bold move, and it was only when people started criticizing Bollinger that he lost his footing and tried to back out. I think his original purpose WAS to benefit his students. He just wasn't brave enough to defend his decision completely.
I agree with Sal in that having Ahmadinejad speak at Columbia University shows that we as a country respect freedom of speech. And for someone such as Ahmadinejad to rewrite history to preference is absurd. However there were two excellent points he made, one was that we are fighting terrorism and killing innocent Iraqis is terrorism as well. The other, please someone correct me if I misunderstood but he said that we have so much nuclear power but whenver another country decides to create nuclear power, we stop them and basically claiming that only America has the right to have nuclear waste. I do think we as a country need to reexamine our ways but at the same time Ahmadinejad needs to reexamine his history if he ever hopes to be a successful leader and respected internationally. After his speech, I truly do believe that he lost much more respect and he simply lost all of mine.
This may be the most ridiculous story I've heard in a long time. Ahmadinejad has a completely distorted view of the world around him, and I found myself wondering while reading this article, how can the leader of a country capable of developing nuclear weapons be such an idiot when it comes to the world? Had the circumstances been different, I would have completely agreed with Bollinger's attack on Ahmadinejad and his views; however, I don't believe that it is right to invite someone to your university with the purpose of bad-mouthing him. Bollinger deserves some criticism for not only inviting him, which could have been a good experience for the students of Columbia, but for attacking him and his beliefs on the spot after inviting him to speak. Ahmadinejad's beliefs, while completely mindless and unintelligent, are still his beliefs, and Bollinger invited him to express those beliefs in front of his students. Ahmadinejad was right in telling Bollinger the students should have been able to form their own opinions, and Bollinger should have realized the majority of the students would realize how moronic those ideas are without his introduction. I also found myself agreeing with Bush when he said that he would not have invited the head of a state sponsor of terror, but that living in America gives anyone the right to do so. The biggest problem I had with Ahmadinejad was his views towards Israel and Palestine, which I believe to be completely erroneous on all counts. Saying that "Iran could not recognize Israel 'because it is based on ethnic discrimination, occupation and usurpation and it consistently threatens its neighbors" is just ridiculous, in my opinion. Overall I think this whole inviting this man to speak at Columbia was a bad idea, and it could not have ended without controversy. I'm sure it seemed like a valuable learning experience, but it was just poor judgement.
After really thinking about this for a long time I came up with a question: In our country, AMERICANS are guaranteed the right to free speech. Does Ahmadinejad deserve that right? Just something to think about. I'd love to hear what everyone thinks. Also, I think that we are villainizing Bollinger instead of the true antagonist: the Iranian president. Of course, Bollinger was out of hand, but all he did was embarass himself, Columbia, and our country. This pales in comparison to Ahmadinejad's immorality and prejudice, which actually affects innocent people.
I think that since our country values freedom of speech so much, anyone should have that right, not just American citizens. We pride ourselves for being open-minded and accepting of others' opinions, so for the purpose of learning more about Iran, Ahmadinejad had the right to say whatever. Though he made really outrageous statements that were both hypocritical and irrelevant, it doesn't mean he can't have the right to voice his opinions. Bollinger and Ahmadinejad were wrong in different ways. Like everyone else has said, Bollinger was unneccessarily hostile and rude. I agree with Sal that it made it seem he was trying to make Columbia look good by inviting the most controversial president to speak. And Allie is right that Ahmadinejad was very immoral, but maybe it's just propoganda. He completely twisted the facts and pretty much made up a lot of what he said. Ahmadinejad seems so dillusional but he has so many anti-American supporters because he loudly stands against america. And there is some truth to what he says about how hypocritical America is. While Bollinger praised our country for freedom of speech, he denied that right to Ahmadinejad. Bollinger told Americans what they wanted to hear, and Ahmadinejad told Americans what Iranians wanted to hear. It was an excellent idea for the Iranian president to speak at Columbia, but technically the discussion went nowhere since both of them were being so nationalistic.
I think it was totally unnecessary to invite President Ahmadinejad to Columbia and then verbally attack him relentlessly. Although Ahmadinejad had some pretty skewed ideas about the past and present, Bollinger's rudeness and hostility seemed to be more emphasized in the article, at least to me. This might actually be because of the way the article was written; it seems to be more anti-Bollinger than anti-Ahmadinejad, and it can almost sweep the reader into a similar mindset. However, President Ahmadinejad's opinions regarding the absence of homosexuals in Iran and his denial of the Holocaust are absurd, and the manner in which he presented them make them even more offensive. I do agree somewhat with his statement about nuclear power. Maybe the way he worded it was out of line, but I think the general idea is valid. It's very hypocritical to condemn another country for nuclear weapons while attempting to produce something that's even stronger.
I think that it was a great idea to have Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, give a speech in the US. A college campus, such as Columbia University, is an ideal place to hold an event like this since open-minded, young students get the opportunity to witness authentic international controversy. Although Ahmadinejad's statements were intrepretted as outlandish and demeaning, they give an outside perspective on the image of the US. His opinions, on the other hand, were very bigoted and strongly biased against America and for the defense of Iran and Palestine. He was smart to remain on the defense, because any insult of the country during his speech could have caused a lot more controversy. But thinking from a different point of view, his thoughts that seem unethical to us could be a widespread belief in another country. I thought Bollinger's harassment was rude and unwarranted. He was trying to cover up his embarassment from being distinguished and persecuted as the one who invited the "evil dictator" to present. By criticizing and diminishing Almadinejad's importance, Bollinger was trying to gain respect from the audience, of which 70 percent reacted. His ridiculing was pointless and just caused unnecessary tension on the stage.
I believe it was a great idea for columbia to invite president Ahmadinejad to speak because it promotes our countries right to freedom of speech and expression. although i dont think a single person in the audience identified with the Iranian president, i do think everyone in the audience benifited from his speach because it represented the little known view point of americas enemies and other anti westerners. In the world's eye Americans are viewed as stuck up snobs who are convinced that because they come from the most prosperous country in the world they dont need to show any respect for or even hear what their opposing sides opinions are. By inviting the president of a country that is openly anti american we prove that we as americans can be tollerant of opinions other than ones that support our country. Bollinger unfortunately did not see it as such and made an introduction to match Ahmadinejad's view on the hollocaust...that is to say it was completely rude and uneccesary. A poor choice on Bollingers part because it not only makes him look like an ass, but also gives the president an excuse to go off. The president's opinions are what most people around here would call insane but that just heightens the importance of his visit because it gives Americans a first hand reference as to what people on the other side of the world really think about us. The american public cannot decide whether or not to fight against a country that they know nothing about. This visit by the Iranian president helped to give a face to who our troops are fighting against in the middle east.
First of all, I think that it was a mistake and porly thought decision on the part of Bollinger to invite Ahmadinejad to speak at Columibia. It is just crazy to invite someone to a place where barely supports him, if at all. I also think it is crazy that he insults us by accusing the US of supporting terrorist groups even though we are clearly against it. That is why we stepped up security everywhere. On top of that, he calls our polititians "politically backwars and retarted" for questioning his desire for nuclear power. For all we know, along with MAYBE providing his country with nuclear energy, he could supply underground terrorist group with the nuclear energy, therefore posing a threat to the rest of the world. The fact that Ahmadinejad also does not believe in the hollocaust is also a problem that most people had with him. Most people might have been insulted by this especially for him to announce it publicly and then debate about it. Although the point of the invitation might have been to educate people and get a better understanding of how an enemy of ous thinks of us, it could have been done other ways. Also, I totally believe in freedom of speech and am glad that Columbia does too, but that should not be one of the reasons for the invitation to speak especially when the guest speaker does not promote it in his country. In closing, I think that the criticism of both was what they deserved but more for Ahmadinejad.
I agree with coco in that it was a good idea to invite Ahmadinejad to Columbia because his speech educated students on his views, even if they were absolutely absurd. The only way to really learn is by communication. I also think that communication is the first step to creating peace. If Bollinger had met Ahmadinejad (with an open mind as Sal said), and if he had listened to what the President had to say, as preposterous as it was, before attacking him with a rude introduction,it would have been more beneficial and wouldn't have embarrassed Bollinger.
i'm glad allie brought up her question. i think we need to practice what we preach. if we believe that people deserve freedom of speech we should extend that right to citizens and non citizens alike. charlie also pointed out something i forgot to comment on. ahmadinejad's comments about israel were extremely judgemental and offensive. however, i do not agree that this indicates his invitation was a mistake. we need to hear oppinions that differ from our own and cause controversy. refusing to hear ideas that we believe are "wrong" is not the solution. we need to understand the root of others beliefs, no matter how ridiculous. in regard to hanks last comment, listening to the opinions of one iranian man, president or not, and deciding we do not agree with them does not justify military action. there is no point in listening to others if our only goal is to discredit their opinions. we are not fighting ahmadinejad, our troops are fighting individuals with their own families, lives and beliefs. there is no "face" that we are fighting against. we need to learn about culture, individuals, their history. how many americans know that the koran teaches that peace is the answer and the muslim community in general does not think the actions of those such as osama bin laden were justified? do you consider yourself an obese, ignorant, selfish hick? because that's the american steryotype.
I fully agree with what Nora said. The idea behind having our "enemy" so to speak, a manifestation of what our country is currently fighting against, fully available in the flesh unaltered or filtered was a wise choice for Columbia. However, I feel that because there was so much emotional investment and very developed opinions before he even opened his mouth to speak, what he had to offer may not have beenfully taken advantage of. Though clearly of a different, and what we would call ignorant culture, a lot of what Ahmadinejad had to say was very relevant. The fact that we as a nation are so overpowering when it comes to nuclear control is an important concept to grasp, and though we feel we are not involved in any terrorist organization, to the outside we may appear a huge threat. Think about it: what on earth are we doing in Iraq? HOw many civilians have unnecessarily dies for our "cause"? To the outside, especially radical Islam, we don't appear to be friendly peacekeepers, but another form of terrorists ourselves. Additionally, the situation in Israel is not a one-sided problem. Who speaks for the Palestinians? I found Ahmadinejad's statement regarding the Palestinians paying the price for the Holocaust to be an interesting point, because there is some validity to it. The problem is, because the speech was not conducted in an unbiased, professional manner, the whole point of the speech was skewed. Bollinger and Co. became the very filters that the event was aiming to prevent. It's frustrating to see such a great opportunity and learning experience go to waste due to a lack of an open and thinking mind, not a closed one. Ahmadinejad shut out his audience by his outrageous un-American claims, and Bollinger by his immature conduct; thus, nothing was achieved.
Adding on to Sal's comment (which came after my first as we posted at the same time- I would've included this in my other post), I think cultural awareness is equally as important as the issue of free speech. Yes, there is a lot of wrongdoing in Iran and the Middle East in general. However, people need to understand the root of these behaviors and ideals. In Pakistan, for instance, the public school system is so messed up and poor (financially) that the best schooling comes from these ultra-radical Islamist schools that are basically breeding radical Muslims (though not all terrorists; this is important to understand). These kids then grow up to hate Americans, and thus cannot listen to anything they stand for because of our liberal culture and seemingly needless attacks on their neighboring countries, all because there are no books in the public schools. (Now back to Iran, I would assume a similar situation exists) So why do we verbally attack the president? Why not tell him to fix the schools, instead of telling him that he's a petty ignorant bigot and ought to not be in charge of a nation? That is not a way to change; it is merely a way to stagnate and prevent progress from ever occurring. We need to find the source of the problems and target them, not just back-and-forth with the figureheads in a conference room.
I completely agree with what Allie said in that we are placing a ton of criticism on Bollinger when it should be placed on the Iranian president, who has no concept of the world. I don't agree with Shawn, Nora, and some others' assessment of how Ahmadinejad's views, albeit moronic, make him into more of a joke world-wide. Only in pro-American countries does he seem to us to be compeltely ignorant, but in the numerous anti-American countries, especially in the Middle East region, these anti-American views will only help them to hate the US even more. He will become popular among those countries not because his ideas are great, which they're clearly not, but he will become popular because the views challenge the way the West, the US, thinks, and all these countries care about is being anti-American.
Allie poses an interesting question, but I strongly believe that Almadinejad had the right to speak his mind, especially after being invited into the US in order to present and share his opinions to an audience. It is agreed that his ideas were preposterous and absurd, and that, although this article shows mixed references to it, Almadinejad is the ultimate antagonist. However, it's important, as Nisha said, to take this step and have a confrontation like this..it's could one of the first steps to establishing peace, if people like Bollinger didn't create the conference into a dispute.
Nora I think you've made a great point about Bollinger backing out as things heated up.
I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall when the administration surely called him to tell him what they thought of extending this invitation to the president of Iran.
She said -- "I think free speech and education was the initial basis for making this bold move, and it was only when people started criticizing Bollinger that he lost his footing and tried to back out."
thanks Shawn for bringing the nuclear issue up. I think this is incredibly controversial. Do the "nuclear" countries have the right to tell others not to use this kind of power? Who decides?
Charlie -- you made me think of something in your initial comment. Would Columbia have invited Hitler? Stalin? do they have the right to pubically air their views at American universities? Is the president of Iran in the same category?
Hank said, "The american public cannot decide whether or not to fight against a country that they know nothing about. This visit by the Iranian president helped to give a face to who our troops are fighting against in the middle east."
I think this is a powerful comment and makes me wonder how much we really know about Iran and I think Jackie brought up a great point -- how much of our knowledge is based on the news and how much of it is deeply slanted?
26 comments:
I totally admire Columbia for inviting President Ahmadinejad to speak. Regardless of his extremist beliefs, education is about acquiring knowledge. And what better way to acquire knowledge than to listen to a speech by the president of a controversial nation? The fact that he represents all that America fights against makes the experience even better. In order to make educated decisions about politics, young and old voters alike need to be exposed to the unfiltered beliefs of countries like Iran. It's imperative that we step outside our nation's patriotic slogans and view the world from all angles possible. Columbia recognized this, and thus provided a once in a lifetime opportunity for participants.
However, I do think that Bollinger's introduction was hostile and unnecessary. Obviously he was on the defensive due to all the criticism about his decision to invite the President in the first place, so it seems he felt the need to confirm to the world (and himself) his staunch nationalism. But honestly, the purpose of inviting the President of Iran to Columbia was to educate people about the country, not about the personal beliefs of pretentious Mr. Bollinger. As Mr. Ahmadinejad said, he should have let the audience form their OWN opinions. Bollinger really misrepresented American hospitality, and should be embarrassed.
I think it was very bold of Columbia to invite President Ahmadinejad to speak. But in doing so, I think that the school, especially Mr. Bollinger should have shown him more respect. It is contradictory to invite someone to speak, and then to insult them in the way that Bollinger did. I think it was advantageous for Ahmadinejad to express his irrational so that people can learn and understand what kind of a man he is and what he stands for.
I am however extremely surprised in President Ahmadinejad's distorted view of the world and of his own country. The fact that he is in the denial of the Hollocaust is astonishing. He denies that there are homosexuals in Iran without providing efficient substantiation. This reflects his prejudice views. Ahmadinejad is not popular in his own country, but he is popular in other Islamic countries outside of Iran where an anti-American sentiment is prevalent because he stands up to the US and is brave enough to challenge our country, and that is exactly what he did when speaking at Columbia. He is admired by other countries for this audacity, but it is hard to believe that anyone could idolize a man who denies such important historical and factual events. I find it interesting that President Bush did not want Ahmadinejad near Ground Zero because of the satisfaction that it would bring him to see the destruction that had been caused to our country.
WOW!!! This might be in the top five most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Bollinger was definitely out of line but as the same time so was Ahmadinejad. They both had constructive points but were so beyond prepostrous that it became hard to fathom. The ridicule of this matter is beyond belief. Bollinger did show poor hospitality to his guest but I felt as if there was also a need to retaliate. Bollinger really couldnt not stand back and take harsh, demoralizing criticism about his country. I also believe however that Ahmadinejad had no idea what he was talking about and was extremely off topic. The purpose to bring him to Columbia is to expand knowledge of his country but he did nothing but belittle Americans and criticize us. I acknowledge there are a couple of statements which he said are true but only few. His hollocaust statement was so farfetched and I must agree that there really was no point in inviting him. He provided no helpful background about his country but then again he is arguably the most controversial president. In my opinion he is the most insane president. Like i said before, WOW!!!
Hm...I really can't decide who is dumber: Bollinger or Ahmadinejad? Although if I had to choose, I'd probably go with the latter.
In my mind, the problem with Bollinger is not the fact that he invited Ahmadinejad to speak in the first place. In fact, I think that it was a pretty interesting idea--hearing his policies and ideas first hand must have been a once in a lifetime experience for the Columbia students. Rather, the problem lies in how Bollinger approached the situation. He misrepresented our country when he verbally attacked Ahmadinejad before he even began to speak. It was rude and childish. Even though I completely agree with everything that Bollinger said, the point of Ahmadinejad's speech was to educate and inform the students--not to put someone else's ideas into their heads. I think that Bollinger is simply trying to appease everyone. As soon as people became upset with his decision to invite the Iranian president, he became a different person. If no one were to have complained, I'm sure that Bollinger would have acted a lot more civil, but he is trying to protect his position at the university.
On the other hand, Ahmadinejad is just ignorant. The Holocaust is just a theory? OK, well then how does he explain all of the concentratoin camps, video footage, and countless other sources of evidence? There are zero homosexuals in Iran? Hard to believe. He should stop trying to deny these things just because they are in his interest. If he accepted that the Holocaust was a truism, he would have no case that the Jews don't deserve Israel. Also, he tried to avoid many controversial questions, sometimes even blatantly lying. For example, when asked if he thought Israel deserved to be a destroyed, he answered that there are plenty of Jews living peacefully in his country and that the Jews are his friends. Although I vehemently hate his ideas, Ahmadinejad did have a point when characterized Bollinger's harsh criticisms as "unfriendly treatment," especially to a guest.
So, which is worse: appeasement and rudeness or ignorance and hate? Once again, I choose the latter.
I think Bollinger's opening statement to Ahmadinejad was really offensive since Columbia had invited him to speak. It was a great idea to bring Ahmadinejad to present his views that we may hear them straight from the source. But both Bollinger and Ahmadinejad were extremely hypocritical. Bollinger praised himself and the university for being so noble to invite the president of Iran, but he continued to verbally attack and accuse him. How can he say he advocates freedom of speech when he was constantly attacking Admadinejad, which would definitely influence students' opinions? If the purpose of bringing Admadinejad to speak was to inform people, it was completely unnecessary to begin by calling him stupid and petty. Although Bollinger was very hostile to him, Admadinejad answered questions irrelevantly and hypocritically. By saying Jews live peacefully in Iran and that the Holocaust never occurred simply goes against fact and documented history. And stating that there are no homosexuals in Iran is absolutely ridiculous. However, it has to be considered that Iran is a whole different culture with a very different set of beliefs. Ahmadinejad had made statements that seemed ridiculous and uncomprehendable, but that's because we view it from an American point of view. It may be that Iranians truly believe there are no homosexuals in their country or that Israel should not be recognized by them. I think it must be taken into account that Iranians view Americans as hypocritical and backward just as we see Iranians.
it is so important that we respect freedom of speech, whether or not people are saying what we want to hear. in this regard, ahmadinejad's visit to columbia was a wonderful idea. hearing ideas from different societies makes us question our own beliefs and we are better for the experience. it's hard to believe some people are so bigoted. not only ahmadinejad for denying the presence of gays in iran and the existence of the holocaust, but also bollinger for labeling and dismissing ahmadinejad and his ideas. ahmadinejad pointed out how hypocritical the us is in some regards and i think he had a valid point. we are in a "war against terrorists" but isn't murdering innocent iraqis terrorism? we deffinetly need to learn to see our own flaws as a nation if we are going to judge others. i also have a question as to bollinger's intentions. i got the sense that ahminadinejad's invitation was columbia attempting to look good. a sort of "look at how much we support freedom of speech, aren't we just swell?!" bollinger's dispicable introduction leaves me with a sense that his intentions were not pure. he did not meet ahmadinejad with an open mind... which is what everyone deserves, especialy someone we accuse of bigotry.
I agree with Allie's (and everyone else's) point of view concerning Ahmadinejad. Obviously, he is astonishingly ignorant and narrow minded. He is trying to change history to support his own ambitions, which is just rediculous. Every time he claims there are no homosexuals in Iran or that the holocaust didn't happen he is merely making himself less credible and more of a joke. People are going to have a hard time taking this man seriously as the leader of a nation when he is so obviously dillusional.
I think Sal is totally right when she says that this was a quintessential display of the American ideal of free speech. But I don't really follow her suspicions towards the primary purpose of having the president speak. I think free speech and education was the initial basis for making this bold move, and it was only when people started criticizing Bollinger that he lost his footing and tried to back out. I think his original purpose WAS to benefit his students. He just wasn't brave enough to defend his decision completely.
I agree with Sal in that having Ahmadinejad speak at Columbia University shows that we as a country respect freedom of speech. And for someone such as Ahmadinejad to rewrite history to preference is absurd. However there were two excellent points he made, one was that we are fighting terrorism and killing innocent Iraqis is terrorism as well. The other, please someone correct me if I misunderstood but he said that we have so much nuclear power but whenver another country decides to create nuclear power, we stop them and basically claiming that only America has the right to have nuclear waste. I do think we as a country need to reexamine our ways but at the same time Ahmadinejad needs to reexamine his history if he ever hopes to be a successful leader and respected internationally. After his speech, I truly do believe that he lost much more respect and he simply lost all of mine.
This may be the most ridiculous story I've heard in a long time. Ahmadinejad has a completely distorted view of the world around him, and I found myself wondering while reading this article, how can the leader of a country capable of developing nuclear weapons be such an idiot when it comes to the world? Had the circumstances been different, I would have completely agreed with Bollinger's attack on Ahmadinejad and his views; however, I don't believe that it is right to invite someone to your university with the purpose of bad-mouthing him. Bollinger deserves some criticism for not only inviting him, which could have been a good experience for the students of Columbia, but for attacking him and his beliefs on the spot after inviting him to speak. Ahmadinejad's beliefs, while completely mindless and unintelligent, are still his beliefs, and Bollinger invited him to express those beliefs in front of his students. Ahmadinejad was right in telling Bollinger the students should have been able to form their own opinions, and Bollinger should have realized the majority of the students would realize how moronic those ideas are without his introduction. I also found myself agreeing with Bush when he said that he would not have invited the head of a state sponsor of terror, but that living in America gives anyone the right to do so. The biggest problem I had with Ahmadinejad was his views towards Israel and Palestine, which I believe to be completely erroneous on all counts. Saying that "Iran could not recognize Israel 'because it is based on ethnic discrimination, occupation and usurpation and it consistently threatens its neighbors" is just ridiculous, in my opinion. Overall I think this whole inviting this man to speak at Columbia was a bad idea, and it could not have ended without controversy. I'm sure it seemed like a valuable learning experience, but it was just poor judgement.
After really thinking about this for a long time I came up with a question: In our country, AMERICANS are guaranteed the right to free speech. Does Ahmadinejad deserve that right?
Just something to think about. I'd love to hear what everyone thinks.
Also, I think that we are villainizing Bollinger instead of the true antagonist: the Iranian president. Of course, Bollinger was out of hand, but all he did was embarass himself, Columbia, and our country. This pales in comparison to Ahmadinejad's immorality and prejudice, which actually affects innocent people.
I think that since our country values freedom of speech so much, anyone should have that right, not just American citizens. We pride ourselves for being open-minded and accepting of others' opinions, so for the purpose of learning more about Iran, Ahmadinejad had the right to say whatever. Though he made really outrageous statements that were both hypocritical and irrelevant, it doesn't mean he can't have the right to voice his opinions.
Bollinger and Ahmadinejad were wrong in different ways. Like everyone else has said, Bollinger was unneccessarily hostile and rude. I agree with Sal that it made it seem he was trying to make Columbia look good by inviting the most controversial president to speak. And Allie is right that Ahmadinejad was very immoral, but maybe it's just propoganda. He completely twisted the facts and pretty much made up a lot of what he said. Ahmadinejad seems so dillusional but he has so many anti-American supporters because he loudly stands against america. And there is some truth to what he says about how hypocritical America is. While Bollinger praised our country for freedom of speech, he denied that right to Ahmadinejad.
Bollinger told Americans what they wanted to hear, and Ahmadinejad told Americans what Iranians wanted to hear. It was an excellent idea for the Iranian president to speak at Columbia, but technically the discussion went nowhere since both of them were being so nationalistic.
I think it was totally unnecessary to invite President Ahmadinejad to Columbia and then verbally attack him relentlessly. Although Ahmadinejad had some pretty skewed ideas about the past and present, Bollinger's rudeness and hostility seemed to be more emphasized in the article, at least to me. This might actually be because of the way the article was written; it seems to be more anti-Bollinger than anti-Ahmadinejad, and it can almost sweep the reader into a similar mindset. However, President Ahmadinejad's opinions regarding the absence of homosexuals in Iran and his denial of the Holocaust are absurd, and the manner in which he presented them make them even more offensive.
I do agree somewhat with his statement about nuclear power. Maybe the way he worded it was out of line, but I think the general idea is valid. It's very hypocritical to condemn another country for nuclear weapons while attempting to produce something that's even stronger.
I think that it was a great idea to have Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, give a speech in the US. A college campus, such as Columbia University, is an ideal place to hold an event like this since open-minded, young students get the opportunity to witness authentic international controversy. Although Ahmadinejad's statements were intrepretted as outlandish and demeaning, they give an outside perspective on the image of the US. His opinions, on the other hand, were very bigoted and strongly biased against America and for the defense of Iran and Palestine. He was smart to remain on the defense, because any insult of the country during his speech could have caused a lot more controversy. But thinking from a different point of view, his thoughts that seem unethical to us could be a widespread belief in another country. I thought Bollinger's harassment was rude and unwarranted. He was trying to cover up his embarassment from being distinguished and persecuted as the one who invited the "evil dictator" to present. By criticizing and diminishing Almadinejad's importance, Bollinger was trying to gain respect from the audience, of which 70 percent reacted. His ridiculing was pointless and just caused unnecessary tension on the stage.
I believe it was a great idea for columbia to invite president Ahmadinejad to speak because it promotes our countries right to freedom of speech and expression. although i dont think a single person in the audience identified with the Iranian president, i do think everyone in the audience benifited from his speach because it represented the little known view point of americas enemies and other anti westerners. In the world's eye Americans are viewed as stuck up snobs who are convinced that because they come from the most prosperous country in the world they dont need to show any respect for or even hear what their opposing sides opinions are. By inviting the president of a country that is openly anti american we prove that we as americans can be tollerant of opinions other than ones that support our country. Bollinger unfortunately did not see it as such and made an introduction to match Ahmadinejad's view on the hollocaust...that is to say it was completely rude and uneccesary. A poor choice on Bollingers part because it not only makes him look like an ass, but also gives the president an excuse to go off. The president's opinions are what most people around here would call insane but that just heightens the importance of his visit because it gives Americans a first hand reference as to what people on the other side of the world really think about us. The american public cannot decide whether or not to fight against a country that they know nothing about. This visit by the Iranian president helped to give a face to who our troops are fighting against in the middle east.
First of all, I think that it was a mistake and porly thought decision on the part of Bollinger to invite Ahmadinejad to speak at Columibia. It is just crazy to invite someone to a place where barely supports him, if at all. I also think it is crazy that he insults us by accusing the US of supporting terrorist groups even though we are clearly against it. That is why we stepped up security everywhere. On top of that, he calls our polititians "politically backwars and retarted" for questioning his desire for nuclear power. For all we know, along with MAYBE providing his country with nuclear energy, he could supply underground terrorist group with the nuclear energy, therefore posing a threat to the rest of the world. The fact that Ahmadinejad also does not believe in the hollocaust is also a problem that most people had with him. Most people might have been insulted by this especially for him to announce it publicly and then debate about it. Although the point of the invitation might have been to educate people and get a better understanding of how an enemy of ous thinks of us, it could have been done other ways. Also, I totally believe in freedom of speech and am glad that Columbia does too, but that should not be one of the reasons for the invitation to speak especially when the guest speaker does not promote it in his country. In closing, I think that the criticism of both was what they deserved but more for Ahmadinejad.
I agree with coco in that it was a good idea to invite Ahmadinejad to Columbia because his speech educated students on his views, even if they were absolutely absurd. The only way to really learn is by communication. I also think that communication is the first step to creating peace. If Bollinger had met Ahmadinejad (with an open mind as Sal said), and if he had listened to what the President had to say, as preposterous as it was, before attacking him with a rude introduction,it would have been more beneficial and wouldn't have embarrassed Bollinger.
i'm glad allie brought up her question. i think we need to practice what we preach. if we believe that people deserve freedom of speech we should extend that right to citizens and non citizens alike. charlie also pointed out something i forgot to comment on. ahmadinejad's comments about israel were extremely judgemental and offensive. however, i do not agree that this indicates his invitation was a mistake. we need to hear oppinions that differ from our own and cause controversy. refusing to hear ideas that we believe are "wrong" is not the solution. we need to understand the root of others beliefs, no matter how ridiculous. in regard to hanks last comment, listening to the opinions of one iranian man, president or not, and deciding we do not agree with them does not justify military action. there is no point in listening to others if our only goal is to discredit their opinions. we are not fighting ahmadinejad, our troops are fighting individuals with their own families, lives and beliefs. there is no "face" that we are fighting against. we need to learn about culture, individuals, their history. how many americans know that the koran teaches that peace is the answer and the muslim community in general does not think the actions of those such as osama bin laden were justified? do you consider yourself an obese, ignorant, selfish hick? because that's the american steryotype.
I fully agree with what Nora said. The idea behind having our "enemy" so to speak, a manifestation of what our country is currently fighting against, fully available in the flesh unaltered or filtered was a wise choice for Columbia. However, I feel that because there was so much emotional investment and very developed opinions before he even opened his mouth to speak, what he had to offer may not have beenfully taken advantage of. Though clearly of a different, and what we would call ignorant culture, a lot of what Ahmadinejad had to say was very relevant. The fact that we as a nation are so overpowering when it comes to nuclear control is an important concept to grasp, and though we feel we are not involved in any terrorist organization, to the outside we may appear a huge threat. Think about it: what on earth are we doing in Iraq? HOw many civilians have unnecessarily dies for our "cause"? To the outside, especially radical Islam, we don't appear to be friendly peacekeepers, but another form of terrorists ourselves. Additionally, the situation in Israel is not a one-sided problem. Who speaks for the Palestinians? I found Ahmadinejad's statement regarding the Palestinians paying the price for the Holocaust to be an interesting point, because there is some validity to it. The problem is, because the speech was not conducted in an unbiased, professional manner, the whole point of the speech was skewed. Bollinger and Co. became the very filters that the event was aiming to prevent. It's frustrating to see such a great opportunity and learning experience go to waste due to a lack of an open and thinking mind, not a closed one. Ahmadinejad shut out his audience by his outrageous un-American claims, and Bollinger by his immature conduct; thus, nothing was achieved.
Adding on to Sal's comment (which came after my first as we posted at the same time- I would've included this in my other post), I think cultural awareness is equally as important as the issue of free speech. Yes, there is a lot of wrongdoing in Iran and the Middle East in general. However, people need to understand the root of these behaviors and ideals. In Pakistan, for instance, the public school system is so messed up and poor (financially) that the best schooling comes from these ultra-radical Islamist schools that are basically breeding radical Muslims (though not all terrorists; this is important to understand). These kids then grow up to hate Americans, and thus cannot listen to anything they stand for because of our liberal culture and seemingly needless attacks on their neighboring countries, all because there are no books in the public schools. (Now back to Iran, I would assume a similar situation exists) So why do we verbally attack the president? Why not tell him to fix the schools, instead of telling him that he's a petty ignorant bigot and ought to not be in charge of a nation? That is not a way to change; it is merely a way to stagnate and prevent progress from ever occurring. We need to find the source of the problems and target them, not just back-and-forth with the figureheads in a conference room.
I completely agree with what Allie said in that we are placing a ton of criticism on Bollinger when it should be placed on the Iranian president, who has no concept of the world. I don't agree with Shawn, Nora, and some others' assessment of how Ahmadinejad's views, albeit moronic, make him into more of a joke world-wide. Only in pro-American countries does he seem to us to be compeltely ignorant, but in the numerous anti-American countries, especially in the Middle East region, these anti-American views will only help them to hate the US even more. He will become popular among those countries not because his ideas are great, which they're clearly not, but he will become popular because the views challenge the way the West, the US, thinks, and all these countries care about is being anti-American.
Allie poses an interesting question, but I strongly believe that Almadinejad had the right to speak his mind, especially after being invited into the US in order to present and share his opinions to an audience. It is agreed that his ideas were preposterous and absurd, and that, although this article shows mixed references to it, Almadinejad is the ultimate antagonist. However, it's important, as Nisha said, to take this step and have a confrontation like this..it's could one of the first steps to establishing peace, if people like Bollinger didn't create the conference into a dispute.
Sal said, "we are in a "war against terrorists" but isn't murdering innocent iraqis terrorism?"
what an interesting question. reminds me of that bumper sticker that reads something like we kill people to show people that killing people is wrong.
thanks for that reminder Sal. Are there times when killing is right? Is this a war of self-defense? so many questions arise.....
Nora I think you've made a great point about Bollinger backing out as things heated up.
I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall when the administration surely called him to tell him what they thought of extending this invitation to the president of Iran.
She said -- "I think free speech and education was the initial basis for making this bold move, and it was only when people started criticizing Bollinger that he lost his footing and tried to back out."
thanks Shawn for bringing the nuclear issue up. I think this is incredibly controversial. Do the "nuclear" countries have the right to tell others not to use this kind of power? Who decides?
Charlie -- you made me think of something in your initial comment. Would Columbia have invited Hitler? Stalin? do they have the right to pubically air their views at American universities? Is the president of Iran in the same category?
Hank said, "The american public cannot decide whether or not to fight against a country that they know nothing about. This visit by the Iranian president helped to give a face to who our troops are fighting against in the middle east."
I think this is a powerful comment and makes me wonder how much we really know about Iran and I think Jackie brought up a great point -- how much of our knowledge is based on the news and how much of it is deeply slanted?
Post a Comment