Yeah, yesterday wasn't a normal day at Columbia. It's not every day that you can only enter campus in two places, or that you have to show your ID at those gates, or that, if you are lucky to be onthe West side of campus, you get to run the gauntlet of hostile protestors calling for your university to be shut down. Also, you couldn't walk through campus without tripping over a reporter, and at one point I must admit that, for fun, I walked in a large circle and got five microphones/notepads shoved in my face before I could complete it. If I liked hearing the sound of my own voice, yesterday would have been a perfect day (wait a moment, I blog; of course I like to hear myself...)

There's plenty of other posts already about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, including here, here, here, and here (the latter ones are from my fellow Columbia students). I wanted to wait a day, to better, well, react to the reactions of the media. There's been some serious misunderstanding, and some downright lies, and a disturbing lack of support from the left-wing blogosphere. It may be longish, but stick with me here.

As usual, Faux, er, Fox News took the lead on disinformation. We all know Fox loves to hate Columbia (I think this is because we're the closest Ivy League school to their studios, and they're too lazy to send people elsewhere). They claimed that students applauded Ahmadinejad's comments, and that there were bitter clashes between groups on campus. The truth is, students did neither. Yes, if you watch the speech, there are students applauding, but there are two caveats to this: first, Bollinger got much more applause, and, second, that was the crowd inside. There were about 600 people inside, many of whom were graduate students from the School of International and Public Affairs. It's an open secret at Columbia that SIPA is particularly sympathetic to people with views close to Ahmadinejad's. One professor, Joseph Massad, has actually written a paper (now developed into a book) stating that homosexuality is a Western concept being forced upon the Middle East. Hardly surprising then that there was applause from some parts of the audience. But had Faux wanted to be fair and balanced, they would've gone outside, where Bollinger's remarks got a standing ovation from a huge crowd of students on the South Lawn, while Ahmadinejad got scattered applause and mostly silence. The biggest reaction to his speech? Like in the auditorium, his claim that there are no homosexuals in Iran was met with derisive laughter. Oh and those clashes? Almost entirely off-campus (i.e. not students), and the only one I saw had a grad student and an administrator or teacher, neither of whom were younger than 35. So much for students clashing. The truth is that the many diverse student groups got together in four days, and created a speaking schedule that allowed all points of view to be heard. Nobody was booed, nobody was shouted down. It was a proud day for Columbia.

More still in extended. 

   Read More »

The Columbia Spectator has gone all out covering the Iranian president’s talk in Morningside Heights today. Here is their great liveblogging coverage; witty title, too. The amount of national media attention this campus event is getting has gone way overboard. It’s newsworthy to be sure, but, as Juan Cole says (via a must-read Greenwald post), “The real reason his visit is controversial is that the American right has decided the United States needs to go to war against Iran. Ahmadinejad is therefore being configured as an enemy head of state.”

Columbia Dean John Coatsworth ran a discursive Q&A period. During which Ahmadinejad repeats his reprehensible call for “more research” on the Holocaust. He says,

   Read More »

Over the past few days, controversy surrounding Columbia University’s invitation for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak has developed around campus, across the national media, and among the presidential candidates.

 

According to the Islamic Republic News Agency, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had the following to say about his visit to Columbia University, "The United States is a big and important country with a population of 300 million. Due to certain issues, the American people in the past years have been denied correct and clear information about global developments and are eager to hear different opinions.”  While Americans are not fooled by Ahmadinejad’s attempts to appear moderate and reasoned, it is important for us to listen to what Ahmadinejad has to say and challenge him on both his deceptive rhetoric and his unacceptable actions within Iran.

 

Relations between the United States and Iran have been rocky to say the least since the Islamic Revolution of 1979 in Iran.  Now, Iran’s possible nuclear capabilities have led to talk of war.  The Bush administration has demonstrated a foreign policy based on a lack of diplomacy and preemptive military action.  Rather than engage Iran in negotiations, the current administration insists on threatening military action of Iran doesn’t comply with American demands.  War with Iran amidst military action in Iraq and Afghanistan would exhaust American troops beyond repair, making the United States vulnerable to attack.

 

During the Cold War, Americans viewed Stalin, Khrushchev, and Brezhnev in a similar way as we view Ahmadinejad now.  The same talk of nuclear war went on between the end of World War II and the collapse of the Soviet Union.  Throughout the conflict, the United States and the Soviet Union were bitterly opposed to each other, but that never stopped the leaders of the two countries from talking.  Diplomacy successfully evaded armed conflict between the world’s two superpowers.

 

To avoid a catastrophic war with Iran, the American government must act diplomatically with Iran, as it did during the Cold War.  The first step to diplomacy is understanding; our government must understand Ahmadinejad’s point of view to be able to negotiate with his regime.  University President Lee Bollinger has recognized this necessity and has invited Ahmadinejad to campus to share his views with students and faculty and ask the tough questions our government refuses to ask.  Columbia University is engaging Ahmadinejad in a way the Bush administration and other countries should.

Two years ago, a senator who has been responsible for the maiming and killing of American troops in Iraq was invited to speak at Columbia.  This week, that same senator scolded Columbia for inviting “a man who is directing the maiming and killing of American troops” to speak.  Many people felt that Senator McCain should not have been asked to speak at Columbia in 2006; many people also agree with him about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  Both groups are wrong—objectionable views, whether they are coming from a jingoistic American neoconservative or a tyrannical Iranian dictator, must be heard and debated in a thriving academic community like Columbia.

In fact, one might even go so far as to say that McCain’s speaking event was less productive than Ahmadinejad’s will be.  While Ahmadinejad’s speech will be dominated by critical questions by members of the university community of the sort he never faces at home (half of the time is devoted to questioning), McCain’s speech involved no such component.  While the latter offered essentially a stump speech in support of his misguided foreign policy, the former will face a torrent of criticism from a diverse array of students who have been empowered by this event to address his outrageous statements and governance.

McCain may not understand the need for a productive dialogue with Iran.  However, Columbia students understand that failure to engage one’s adversaries on a diplomatic level leads to unnecessary wars such as the one Senator McCain so stubbornly supports in Iraq.  He was wrong then and he is wrong now—Columbia is right to begin the diplomacy that the Bush administration has failed to carry out, and the next president should be a true progressive who understands the need for engagement.