Specifically with his observation that "Judging tenure battles from the outside is a dangerous business." (Particularly true, I would add, in the more esoteric disciplines, like, say, archaeology.) That's how the TNR editor-in-chief introduces his latest post.
Problem is, the next sentence starts with the word "But" ... and is followed by 600 words of amateur-hour analysis of the archaelogical work of an anthropologist of Palestinian descent, Nadia Abu El-Haj. Peretz is apparently so flustered by Columbia's decision to grant Dr. Abu El-Haj tenure--following a controversy and a "highly rigorous review" conducted by both in-house and independent scholars--that he ends by predicting that Columbia's board of trustees will fire President Lee Bollinger over the decision. But why? For hewing to long-established academic protocol? For not intervening in an unorthodox and probably unethical fashion in a departmental tenure review?
Well, beyond a vague reference to "intellectual mayhem," Peretz doesn't even try to back up his absurd prediction. More sterling argumentation from the EIC of one of the country's leading political magazines.
Yeah, I'm back finally. To those of you who didn't read this blog over the summer, and so don't know what I'm talking about, I forgive you. It's hard enough keeping track of the staff around here. Anyways, apparently David Horowitz passed through campus, but after Ahmadinejad, no one really cared at all. TPMtv's got the goods.
Apparently, some states have elections in odd-numbered years. Freaks. Anyways, about 60 of my fellow Columbia Democrats knew about this wierd practice, and are in Kentucky right now campaigning for Steve Beshear. You can follow their progress here and here.
Two non-Columbia stories: In the Friday dump, Senators Kennedy and Enzi announced they're putting off changes to the NCLB at least until early next year (and one would expect, 2008 being an election year, that it will likely be pushed off until after the election). Frankly, they've had years to write good legislation on this, so the deadline excuse doesn't fly. They can even start with the crib sheet Zach Marks and I wrote. We'll let them take credit for the ideas.
In butt news: this happened. I think it's an inspired idea.
We've all heard by now that Columbia President Lee Bollinger introduced Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the other day with a monotonous tirade. Many people have pointed out that the introduction was not only sprinkled with questionable characterizations (for example, Bollinger called him a “cruel and petty dictator” but that’s ludicrous because A'jad is largely a powerless figurehead who was democratically elected to boot). Of course Ahmadinejad should have faced pointed questions—and he did—but as Pat Buchanan said on Hardball, Bollinger went way overboard, probably in part to mollify his donor base.
Well, you know, and Ahmadinejad, what he did, he just played off him beautifully. He said, Look, in Iran, we don‘t invite guests and then insult them to their face, and secondly, we generally let the audience decide whether what they have to say, if they agree or disagree with it. And you‘ve sort of insulted the audience. And then he moved on.
Now John Caruso at The Distant Ocean has dug up the “liberal” Bollinger’s introduction of actual military dictator General Perez Musharraf of Pakistan (Via This Modern World). Keep in mind that Musharraf is not an official state enemy while you read for the difference in, ahem, tone:
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,
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.
Jim D commented earlier that today was the day we’ve all been waiting: the day the U.S. News and World Report rankings come out. Well I’m tired of this shit. Not because I’m tired of Yale always being No. 3. Not because I’m tired of watching helicopter parents drive their children to anxiety overload. I’m sick of the rankings undermining American competitiveness by incentivizing institutional behavior that privileges the privileged, undermines equality and fairness, and diverts schools’ priorities from educating students to fudging figures. Am I just ranting here? Maybe. But I try to back it up with some more meat in my op-ed on the Huffington Post today. Check it out. Beef up the comments section at HuffPo with some CP love.
Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.
Posts
!
