Columbia, the Germ of the Ivies

Nick Gillespie | September 21, 2007

The Wall Street Journal lays it on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's U.S. host, Columbia University:

[H]is regime also executes homosexuals for the crime of being themselves. Maybe if Columbia University President Lee Bollinger were aware of the latter fact he would reconsider his invitation to the Iranian president to speak on his campus next Monday.

Mr. Bollinger, notoriously, voted in 2005 not to readmit an ROTC program to Columbia (absent from the university since 1969), ostensibly on the grounds of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding gay service members. Never mind that other upper-tier schools, including Princeton, Dartmouth, Cornell and the University of Pennsylvania all have ROTC programs. Never mind, too, that in 2003 the Columbia student body voted in favor of readmission by a 2-1 margin. In Mr. Bollinger's view, "the university has an obligation, deeply rooted in the core values of an academic institution and in First Amendment principles, to protect its students from improper discrimination and humiliation."

Mr. Bollinger's position might at least be coherent were he not now invoking the same principles to justify his invitation to Mr. Ahmadinejad, whose offenses to gay rights and any other form of human dignity considerably exceed the Pentagon's....

More here, but only for WSJ subscribers, alas.

I'm not sure I follow the full implications of this argument--so the WSJ would be OK with the visit if ROTC were on campus?--but there is almost always something bizarre about university policies regarding campus speakers, organizations, etc. After having gone through grad school in the late '80s and early '90s, the only thing I know for sure is that there are very few people--in academia and in the press, too--who really are consistently in favor of free speech, especially if it means giving time to something you oppose.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

|9.21.07 @ 10:06AM|#

Bollinger being a hypocrite or an inconsistent administrator is not an argument against bringing in Ahmadinejad. It's an argument that Bollinger is full of it.

thoreau|9.21.07 @ 10:14AM|#

Ahmadinejad is a man who ran for office on a platform of massive government spending and religious fanaticism. He's not terribly articulate, he relies heavily on fundamentalists for votes, he has close ties to the oil industry, and he can't quite explain what he was doing in the 1970's. To top it off, he's doing everything in his power to foment trouble in the Middle East.

No man like that should be allowed to speak at a university in the United States.

Sorry, W.

Scooby|9.21.07 @ 10:19AM|#

I don't see any evidence here of Bollinger being a hypocrite nor an inconsistent administrator. He isn't allowing Ahmadinejad to establish a credit granting academic program (such as an ROTC program) at Columbia, just letting him give a speech.

Click Here for Details|9.21.07 @ 10:26AM|#

NEW FILM THAT EXPOSES FREE SPEECH LIMITS IN ACADEMIA...

WWW.INDOCTRINATEU.COM

|9.21.07 @ 10:27AM|#

As a Columbia alum, I still don't think it's the case of whether Bollinger is right or wrong. Frankly, the guy is not the best president and can do a lot better for the school and community instead of just make money off of it. But I stand by the school's decision to have Ahmadinejad speak. How can we be hypocrites and tell Middle Eastern countries they need to have more freedom such as Speech and then not let the President of Iran not do so?

Scooby: Iran executes homosexuals, and yet Columbia won't even allow the Army on campus for career day.

|9.21.07 @ 10:30AM|#

Looks like we know how the Republican media organs are going to try to save their butts - by calling everyone terror lovers and pretending that they are the only ones who realize that terror-supporting Islamists are BAD, mm-kay? Tonight I'm gonna partly like it's June 2002!

My college invited the Yugoslav ambassador to give a speech in the early 90s, AND YET they have very strict rules against ethnic cleansing at GWU! The horror! The hypocrisy!

The...uh...rather obvious fact that Universities frequenstly invite speakers whose opinions are at odds with the schools' official positions!

You want some hypocrisy? Imagine what the WSJ would saymagine if Columbia had banned, say, Rich Santorum from giving a speech because of their regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Scooby|9.21.07 @ 10:32AM|#

Lamar,

Columbia won't establish a program that grants academic credit for classes in "Marching Up and Down the Square". ROTC is a little bit more involved than "career day."

|9.21.07 @ 10:33AM|#

Oh, I forgot one.

Calling people terror-lovers, posing as the only steely-eyed realists who see the world as it truly is, and wailing about "moral equivalence" when their own hypocrisy is pointed out.

|9.21.07 @ 10:36AM|#

Columbia faculty took a huge stand for academic freedom when they opposed they UK boycott. They made a mistake by kicking out ROTC, but their dedication to dialogue is sincere. Bollinger insisted that half the time go to Q and A. Hopefully the audience will call Ahmadinejad on his policies during that time.

|9.21.07 @ 10:40AM|#

I know for sure is that there are very few people--in academia and in the press, too--who really are consistently in favor of free speech, especially if it means giving time to something you oppose.

Left or right, communist or John Bircher, it's always the same. Free speech is good for me, but not for thee. With less than 50% of Americans unequivicably supporting free speech, I fear for my country's soul. Often.

Scooby: that's the friggin' point. Columbia won't allow the Army on campus for career day because of it's policy towards gays, but it will let the leader of a country that executes gays give a speech. Neither are credit bearing and neither lasts more than a day.

this is a bit of a rhetorical question (and a bit not), but how did we get to the point where the default position of: If someone doesn't completely agree with you, you shouldn't even talk to, or engage them?

hell, if libertarians held that view we'd be mighty lonely people.

|9.21.07 @ 10:48AM|#

IIRC, several Kremlin leaders visited the US during the Soviet era and they probably did some propagandizing too. We seem to have survived.

GOD|9.21.07 @ 10:51AM|#

Are you kidding? Why didn't the republicans even show up for the NAAPC debate (except Tancredo), or the dems for the fox debate. It's the same reason we didn't negoiate with Iran until receantly. It's also the reason W is never exposed to protesters if it can be helped. Today you don't talk to people that disagree with you. If we had that attitude during the cold war it might have ended with mushroom clouds. The people in Washington are so convienced of their superiority they don't need to talk to anyone.

|9.21.07 @ 10:52AM|#

but how did we get to the point where the default position of: If someone doesn't completely agree with you, you shouldn't even talk to, or engage them?

We? I often find others speech to be ignorant, odious, and harmful to humanity as a whole. I find repression of it far, far worse. The ACLU is consistently correct on this issue.

|9.21.07 @ 10:59AM|#

First I think is allowing Ahmadinejad because they need to hear form someone with a more moderate voice in their mideast studies department.

Joe,

I am sympathetic to the idea that colleges should let anyone speak no matter how vile they are but lets be honest, do you really think Columbia would let say Pinchet speak there? Or what about the leader of Burma whoever that is these days? Fat chance. My guess is that Rumsfeld wouldn't be allowed to speak there these days. If not them, why Ahmadinejad? The only reason I can see is that he is an enemy of the US and that seems to cover all sins for places like Columbia.

|9.21.07 @ 11:03AM|#

What about David Duke Joe? Would you be angry if Columbia refused to let him speak? Granted he is a nobody but what he managed to get himself elected to Congress or do something that made him significant again and someone wanted him to speak on campus. Can you tell me with a straight face that Columbia would allow that? I sure can't.

dhex|9.21.07 @ 11:06AM|#

john thanks for tipping us off that sometimes people do stuff for political reasons, and often they are political consistent and yet logically inconsistent. i was on the fence with this bold new idea but i think you've tipped the balance for me.

thank you.

on a more serious note, hopefully someone will rip him a new one during the Q&A.

|9.21.07 @ 11:07AM|#

John,

Ba dum-bum! Heh-oooooooo!!!

Like I said, GWU let the Serbian ambassador speak there in 1994, and the Iraqi ambassador in 1991, post-invasion of Kuwait.

Plenty of other universities have let leaders from nasty governments speak.

Your "guess" seems a little silly. Right-wing blowhards like Coulter and Horowitz frequently speak on college campuses.

|9.21.07 @ 11:08AM|#

After having gone through grad school in the late '80s and early '90s, the only thing I know for sure is that there are very few people--in academia and in the press, too--who really are consistently in favor of free speech, especially if it means giving time to something you oppose.

BINGO! Spot on Nick. I'm even more depressed to see the same mentality around here. I expected better.

|9.21.07 @ 11:12AM|#

"Your "guess" seems a little silly. Right-wing blowhards like Coulter and Horowitz frequently speak on college campuses."

Considering that fact that Lawrence Summners a former Clinton Adminstration official got disinvited to speak at a UC campus and Standfor is objecting to Rumsfeld working on campus at a totally unassociated think tank, the Hoover Institue, why is my guess so silly? Do you honestly beleive that someone like David Duke (although considering his anti-semetism and attitude towards Israel, he might be more welcome on campus than he used to be) or say PW Botha when he lead aprtheid South Africa would be welcome to speak at Columbia? I sure don't.

dhex|9.21.07 @ 11:12AM|#

i bet liberty university has hilarious speakers all the time (i caught the tail end of one of their lecture broadcasts but it was about some dead jewish guy and nothing cool like executing people)

|9.21.07 @ 11:13AM|#

"Like I said, GWU let the Serbian ambassador speak there in 1994, and the Iraqi ambassador in 1991, post-invasion of Kuwait"

What do those guys have in common? They are enemies of the US. Show me where someone who is vile and an ally of the US or at least neutral towards the US got to speak? Like I said, hating the US washes away all sins.

dhex|9.21.07 @ 11:18AM|#

john: when are you and joe going to heal the crystal and spiritually unify?

urskeks for the win.

ed|9.21.07 @ 11:20AM|#

No man like that should be allowed to speak at a university in the United States.

Hell, let him speak. Maybe a lucky loonie will assassinate him. Everybody wins!

|9.21.07 @ 11:25AM|#

I don't care who Columbia lets speak. It is a free country and if they want to let that moonbat speak, I am sorry for the people who spend 50K a year to go there. I object to him going to the WTC site, but he can have fun a Columbia. That said, it is rediculous to claim that Columbia has any interest in academic freedom or open discourse. They will forgive this guy's sins because he is an enemy of the country and it is a good way to poke the government in the eye. That is what is going on here because it is not like they let anyone no matter how vile speak there.

|9.21.07 @ 11:28AM|#

Thoreau wins.

dhex|9.21.07 @ 11:29AM|#

john can you give an example of a world leader they denied a speaking engagement to?

|9.21.07 @ 11:30AM|#

Hell, let him speak. Maybe a lucky loonie will assassinate him. Everybody wins!

Hell no! Then he becomes a martyr in the fight with the Great Satan (that's us.) His ridiculous domestic policies (leading to French levels of unemployment among the young) make him extremely unpopular among the majority of Iranians. Him getting killed in the US would not be a good long-term development.

Episiarch|9.21.07 @ 11:32AM|#

Let him get reamed by the audience (if Columbia allows this, of course, which is unlikely).

The whole point is that if Columbia kisses his ass and won't let people ask tough questions, they look like dictator-coddling assholes (which would be accurate in that case). If they don't, and the audience asks him tough questions, he can answer them or storm off and look like a dick.

No matter what happens, we learn more about everyone involved and their positions if he speaks.

The Wine Commonsewer|9.21.07 @ 11:34AM|#

I know it has probably gotten better since Angela Davis was the celebrity darling of academe, but I'm finding it difficult to imagine why Columbia invited the Iranian bugaboo de jour to speak on campus in the first place. My money is on: This will really piss GWB off.

The Wine Commonsewer|9.21.07 @ 11:36AM|#

How can we be hypocrites and tell Middle Eastern countries they need to have more freedom such as Speech and then not let the President of Iran not do so?

Let the guy rent a hall and stand on the corner and hand out flyers. He's free to do just that while he's here. Free speech doesn't mean the taxpayers provide you with a forum. It means the government doesn't get to tape your mouth shut.

Disclaimer, I don't really care either way, but to frame this as a free speech issue on a campus that is known for it's thought police tactics at the teacher's college is absurd.

dhex|9.21.07 @ 11:38AM|#

No matter what happens, we learn more about everyone involved and their positions if he speaks.

which is certainly the best possible outcome.

|9.21.07 @ 11:38AM|#

I think he should be allowed to speak. I also would really love it if no one showed up to hear him.

Scooby|9.21.07 @ 11:41AM|#

John,

Why are you using what the cranks at Berkeley did to tar Columbia? All you've proven is that there are some universities that don't give a crap about free speech, which is common knowledge around here.

Lamar,

Any evidence that the military isn't allowed to recruit at "career day"? ROTC has jack-shit to do with career day. ROTC is an academic program that some universities do not wish to adopt and support (by expending resources, and granting academic credit).

I'm sure any Columbia student is able to hop on a subway train and take their ROTC classes at one of the colleges in NYC that do offer ROTC, if they so wish. Columbia has no duty (legal nor moral) to host the programs themselves.

TWC,
My money is on: This will really piss GWB off.

Anything wrong with that reason?

Free speech doesn't mean the taxpayers provide you with a forum. It means the government doesn't get to tape your mouth shut.

Columbia is a private institution, IIRC. No tax dollars were spent in providing the forum.

dhex|9.21.07 @ 11:46AM|#

Anything wrong with that reason?

well, in one sense yes. it's pretty reflexively stupid.

i'm surprised no one's brought up the whole minuteman thing (a great display of how shamefully stupid people can be when brought together with great passion and little thought.)

|9.21.07 @ 11:46AM|#

The Serbian ambassador was NOT an enemy of the United States. We were painfully neutral at the time.

John, you've got the "Just KNOW" thing going, and the politically-convenient theory to go with it.

Would you care to answer dhex's question?

Scooby|9.21.07 @ 11:53AM|#

dhex,

Yes, it might be stupid if that were truly their sole reason. Doing things for stupid reasons isn't illegal- if it were, the whole government would have to shut down.

Hey, I think you might be on to something.

lunchstealer|9.21.07 @ 11:56AM|#

No man like that should be allowed to speak at a university in the United States.

What, not even Liberty?

|9.21.07 @ 12:18PM|#

"john can you give an example of a world leader they denied a speaking engagement to?"

is this a case of denying or allowing folks who request to speak, or inviting folks to speak? If the latter the question should be: "john can you give an example of a world leader they did not invite for a speaking engagement" no? if so I can think of many.

Rhywun|9.21.07 @ 12:31PM|#

Columbia won't allow the Army on campus for career day because of it's policy towards gays, but it will let the leader of a country that executes gays give a speech.

If Ahmadinejad were there to recruit new Iranians, you would have a point.

Also, Columbia is a private institution. They can allow or disallow who- and whatever the fuck they want.

Rhywun|9.21.07 @ 12:33PM|#

I might add that casting the lack of ROTC as some sort of "freedom of speech" issue is pretty fucking disingenuous.

|9.21.07 @ 12:34PM|#

John,

I don't see why Columbia would not allow David Duke to speak. He and Ahmajiadad could give a joint appearance. They already have in Tehran when Duke appeared at Ahmajadadad's "world without zionism" holocaust denial conference. Duke and Ahmajadad's world views are very similar.

Larry Summers however can not speak. He thinks women may not be as good at math as men. He promotes hate speech and is not good for women's self esteem. I wonder what Ahmajadad thinks of women's abilities in math.

TLB|9.21.07 @ 12:49PM|#

How odd that Gillespie didn't mention that just as the University was inviting A., a student-led group was retracting an invitation to another speaker.

Who could that person be? The president of the Sudan? North Korea? Libya?

No, just someone who costs powerful people money.

|9.21.07 @ 12:50PM|#

Talk, talk, talk, brood, talk, talk....etc.

No more talk, now is the time to walk...with arms.
Another case for the Libertarian militia.
We have to demand that Columbia University receive no more Federal funds, INCLUDING, student loans.
Total privatization. Then they can go higher any neurosurgen to exam their anuses to their hearts content.

Scooby|9.21.07 @ 12:59PM|#

LW,

That student-led group is not the same people as the ones inviting Ahmadinejad. The student board is a pack of jackasses (or, a majority of them anyway), as are the students who shouted down the speaker. (BTW, congrats on finding your space key).

Terry,

Your Libertarian militia should be going for dismantling the programs, not imposing silly political tests for the funds. Do you really want the majority determining what is appropriate speech or who are appropriate speakers? I'm pretty sure the majority that would set the standards are either authoritarians or eager to go along with authoritarians.

|9.21.07 @ 1:05PM|#

I meant "hirer" not "higher".
With no public funds involved they can do what they want.
Yes, I am for abolishing the student loan guarentees.
I think you missed my point. It is libertarian.

dhex|9.21.07 @ 1:11PM|#

i do have to say i am very impressed with the strength and creative flexibility of the "illegal immigration is a plot by the elites" meme.

not very applicable in columbia unless you want to argue that the commie jackasses who shut down the first one are under shadowy control.

(ps feel free to argue that)

|9.21.07 @ 1:12PM|#

I'm going to put on my aging curmudgeon hat now.

As I creep into mid-life, I realize that about 50% of what goes on at universities is completely horseshit. To me, college football, fraternity parties, campus speakers, and ethnic/gender studies are all equally useless.

Were I to advise the average young'un today, I would say they'd be better off in the long run to become a plumber's apprentice than to spend $40-50k per year to attend Columbia. Perform a useful, lucrative trade and avoid going $200k+ in debt for the privilege of paying for the above-mentioned crap.

Scooby|9.21.07 @ 1:15PM|#

Sorry Terry, but when you single out Columbia to be cut off from student loans, etc., you seem to be imposing a political test in response to unpopular speech. Doesn't sound very libertarian to me.

FTR, I don't think the feds should be involved in much of anything, but if they are, they shouldn't be restricting the money based on providing a forum for a foreign leader (especially when that foreign leader will most likely show himself to be full of shit in his speech). If you don't like the content of his speech, ignore it or voice your own counterarguments; don't demand that he be silenced.

|9.21.07 @ 1:38PM|#

Lesse here.

Columbia invites a major-league international nutjob (who wants to commit a second Holocaust) and defends its decision on free-speech grounds. Fine. I think that the absurd American Nazi nutjob George Lincoln Rockwell was allowed to speak on college campuses in the '60s for the same reason.

Not too long ago, the decidedly minor-league nutjob Jim Gilchrist was not allowed to speak at Columbia, because a bunch of simple-minded "activists" decided that what Gilchrist was doing was not speaking, but rather "preaching hate," and thus needed to be silenced.

Anyone who thinks that we're really gonna tear Ahmadinejad a new one during the Q&A session is obviously unfamiliar with how he deals with questioners and will be sorely disappointed. Rest assured, Ahmadinejad will leave the auditorium with the same number of assholes he walked in with.

When I was at Columbia ('77-'81), us straight-but-sensitive types were proud of the fact that the student group Gay People at Columbia was the first campus gay organization in the country. I figured that by now the group would have renamed itself, probably as Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transsexual Questioning And Anybody Else We God Forbid Forgot People At Columbia, but in fact they're now called The Columbia Queer Alliance. Whatever.

Presumably the CQA is pleased that Columbia bars the ROTC, because of their adherence to the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policies towards gays. So what does the CQA have to say about the appearance on campus of a man whose government practices a policy of Don't Ask Just Kill towards gays? Surely they must be planning a major protest, with marchers carrying placards showing photos of gay Iranian men swinging from scaffolds. The CQA must be on high alert and bristling for a fight.

At the top of the CQA home page, under "Upcoming Events," this is all you see:

Queer Sushi! Join us on Thursday, September 13th at 7pm in C555 Lerner for free sushi, fun, and the first CQA meeting of the year!

Sad. Just sad.

|9.21.07 @ 1:45PM|#

It's funny, I just can't get that worked up about campus PC anymore.

For the professors, I have no problem if they want to live in their little parallel universe, so long as I'm not paying for it. For the students, 95% are either thinking about the next party or view college as simply another hoop they jump through on the way to the Career of Their Dreams. For the 5% who care, many will themselves end up as future Twilight Zone professors, and the rest seem to end up as various sorts of political hangers-on.

What's amusing is the whole David Horowitz-style hysteria on this subject. I guess I just have a low opinion of academia in general.

|9.21.07 @ 1:54PM|#

ChrisO, is that you, David Mamet?

"I think college is a waste of time for anything, unless you want to go into the hard sciences...they're teaching deconstructionism, multiculturalism and anti-Semitism."

|9.21.07 @ 2:07PM|#

It's funny that I say all that, since I was a history major myself and feel like I got a pretty good education that has made my life better and more enjoyable.

However, I went to college before they force-fed the "___ Studies" crap to all of the liberal arts students (so I mostly escaped that and took courses I was interested in). And, equally importantly, my tuition at the Univ. of Oregon was quite reasonable (yes, yes, I know, libertarian going to a publicly funded uni and all that...). If I had faced the prospect of paying over $200k in tuition to get lectured a bunch of propaganda (of whatever political bent) in place of real learning, then I would have rethought my decision.

I guess I can't go quite as far as David Mamet does, but I sympathize with his position.

|9.21.07 @ 2:25PM|#

Sure! Some guy who's going to attack an deservedly-hugely-unpopular Red president is going to just get savaged by student questioners. :D

dhex|9.21.07 @ 2:33PM|#

i dunno guys i've been in the libruh artz my whole life and no one force feeds me shit.

but then again, i think david horowitz is a pussy so yeah...

dhex|9.21.07 @ 2:42PM|#

to qualify that however, half my academic career was in a more business-oriented program and i've had actually had conservative professors. (admittedly at one of the more left school systems in the nation)

|9.21.07 @ 2:53PM|#

Scooby: They banned military recruiters until Congress passed the Soloman Amendment.

|9.21.07 @ 4:43PM|#

What's this? A pledge pin? On your uniform?!

Nigel Watt|9.21.07 @ 4:50PM|#

I can guarantee you that if Ahmendkjalskdjf were invited to speak at Cornell we would be infuriated.

The Wine Commonsewer|9.21.07 @ 6:27PM|#

Scooby and Dhex, I didn't realize that Columbia was governed by a private board of directors.

Columbia also accepts millions of tax dollars for a variety of research projects every year.

In addition, Columbia gets the patent rights to anything they come up with that was funded with tax dollars. Sweet deal for a nominally private university.

Columbia is essentially a tax funded institution. Government grants provide funds for R&D which translates into valuable patent rights which translates into cashflow.

|9.22.07 @ 12:57AM|#

I'm not sure I follow the full implications of this argument....

I'm not surprised, Nick, but keep trying, one needs to have a goal.

|9.22.07 @ 2:33PM|#

I think Ahmadinejad should be allowed to speak.

However, I agree that Columbia's stated reasons on their policy towards ROTC are disingenuous. I don't think it's a secret that many in higher education are contemptuous of the military.

FWIW, I graduated from a private liberal arts college with no ROTC program and eventually joined the Army myself.

dhex|9.23.07 @ 12:03AM|#

Columbia is essentially a tax funded institution.

i guess. it doesn't make it a public university though. diffidence that makes a difference - i mean most large corporations are on that same public teat, but no one here would accept this line of reasoning to call them public. because wal-mart owes us all a fucking ginormous refund etc etc and so forth we'd all be dead before we could count it here.

Alex|9.23.07 @ 10:41PM|#

Bollinger claims that there is some important relationship between the invitation that was issued to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Columbia's commitments to the free exchange of ideas. What is this relationship? Do the aforementioned commitments require the invitation? If not, and thus not inviting Ahmadinejad is also consistent with these commitments, then what was the reason for the invitation? Moreover, that ideas can be exchanged at all is an acknowledgement of the fact that ideas can be debated and analyzed without the presence of particular proponents of the ideas in question. Since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's ideas can be debated, analyzed and otherwise exchanged without him, what was the reason for the invitation?

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements