curious to see what you all think...lots to talk about with this one!
Please see the last comment from your previous blog for my feedback.
34 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Personally, I really did not like how Ahmadinejad was treated during his visit to Columbia. Even though he is the head of a state sponser of terror, he does deserve to be treated with respect. I am definitely not saying that I agree with the statements that he said or issues that he chose to ignore, but I feel that the United States is responsible for setting an example to the rest of the world. I hated how Bollinger suggested how he might be "astonishingly uneducated" or lacking in "intellectual courage to answer" the questions asked. The United States is known for its freedom of speech, so why neglect a foreigner who is only sharing his opinion? Isn't that why Columbia asked him to speak in the first place? Ahmadinejad already proved he had courage by speaking at a school who clearly opposed his ideas. I felt that Bollinger could have approached the situation while still sharing the same opinions. However, I did hate how Ahmadinejad refused to believe that there were any homosexuals in his country and that the Holocaust was only a theory. While very hated, Ahmadinejad did approach the situation well and did not back down which is respectable.I completely understand everything the Bollinger was saying, but I really hated how he had a complete lack of respect of the president of Iran.
Although it is hard to make a decision regarding the appropriateness about a speaker such as Ahmadinejad at a major university, it is easy to realize that both Columbia and Bollinger himself completely embarassed themselves. It is extremely unprofessional to attack a speaker before they've even had a chance to speak. It is completely appalling that Bollinger would do something like that, especially when you consider the fact that their invitation to Ahmadinejad was so controversial. Had Columbia actually committed to backing Ahmadinejad, then I believe that they would be applauded for it. The public would have understood the kind of courage that it takes to allow a speaker of that nature into your school and allow him to speak his mind; however, by verbally abusing Ahmadinejad and claiming that he is uneducated and lacks "intellectual courage" Columbia is actively creating a way out for themselves in case the public becomes outraged by Ahmadinejad's statements. It is very ironic that Bollinger states that Ahmadinejad lacks "intellectual courage" because by making these remarks, he appears as the ultimate coward.
I personally feel that bringing Ahmadinejad, to Columbia could have truly been a good opportunity for the students of Columbia to get a different perspective of these world events; however, it did not turn out as well as I would have hoped. After Bollinger, president of Columbia, invited Ahmadinejad to speak, he completely bombards him with insults and questions he only wanted answered one way. He did not fully give him the opportunity to speak freely. He did not approach this in the right manner and I feel it hurt the overall outcome of the speech/event. On the other hand, in my opinion, Ahmadinejad deserved such treatment in some aspects. He is completely incorrect about the majority of the things he says, such as saying holocaust never existed and that there are no homosexuals in Iran. He is out of his mind to believe such things. There is hard evidence to prove that the holocaust truly existed and he is being narrow-minded, stubborn and idiotic to hold on to his belief. When it comes to having no homosexuals in Iran, again, it is known that approximately 1 of 10 people are homosexual. It is hard to grasp that someone could be so greatly unaware of history and his own people. I do not believe he knows every individual and can say he knows, for a fact, that there are no homosexuals in his country. It is absurd. I think choosing a controversial speaker to come and speak is an excellent idea but was it the right choice to bring Ahmadinejad? Was is right to not let him share his story and ideas, whether it may be right or wrong? Students at Columbia are educated enough to think for themselves and come up with their own view of world politics.
I agree with Jack when he says Bollinger embarrassed himself along with Columbia. However, not only did he embarrass himself and his school, but he also embarrassed the United States. We are known as a country of free speech, yet Bollinger did the exact and complete opposite. He was rude and I'm sure Ahmadinejad didn't get to say half the things he had wanted to. This speech/event turned out to be almost a waste of time. I don't believe students could have gotten much from it however, I could be wrong.
One thing that got me was the first paragraph. Ahmadinejad states that there are no homosexuals in Iran and that the holocaust was just a theory. One, unless he knows everyone in Iran personally, he can't lump everyone together in a category. How can he be sure that not a single person is homosexual, when sometimes, that person doesn’t even know. Two, there are facts that the holocaust happened. Look at Auschwitz and Birkenau. I was there this past summer and saw the buildings that “housed” the Jews (more like packed them away), the crematoriums, as well as some of the Jew’s belongings that were confiscated. The many museums have pictures of Jews (and others) literally being worked to death, pictures showing how emaciated they were from lack of food and pictures of the mass graves, where everyone who died was unceremoniously thrown in. Not only that, but there are still people alive who survived the holocaust and can describe just how badly they were treated.
Nevertheless, although I don't agree with many of Ahmadinejad's statements, I do believe that he could have been treated with more respect. It really boiled my blood when Mr. Bollinger said that he doubted that Ahmadinejad would have “intellectual courage to answer these questions”. Bollinger just made the U.S. seem really cocky and arrogant. And despite being told repeatedly that he is uneducated, he “wore a frozen smile”. Also, “Mr. Bollinger praised himself and Columbia for showing they believed in freedom of speech by inviting the Iranian president” near the beginning of his speech and yet, he wouldn’t let Ahmadinejad answer the questions that he was asked. So, what was the point of saying that you believe in the freedom of speech. Ahmadinejad said it perfectly, “You ask the question and then you want the answer the way you want to hear it.” If Bollinger really believed in the freedom of speech, he would have let Ahmadinejad speak.
Margaux - you said that Ahmadinejad deserved the treatment he received. I disagree with you on that point. Despite what he said, no matter how absurd or untrue it is, does not meant that people can throw away their morals and verbally attack someone.
Frankly, it scares that someone like Ahmadinejad has so much influence and power over certain people and ethnic groups today. It shocks me to hear anyone say that something as notorious in history as the Holocaust is just a "theory". What, the idea of the Holocaust was a hypothetical situation? It's not crucial to say 'who did it' anymore, no one's trying to point fingers -- but you should at least acknowledge that it happened. Then, to go on and used the word "retarded". That was completely unnecessary to me. Out of every derogatory term he could have used, he chose the word retarded. Personally, it bothers me when anyone uses this word. I think that it's too commonly misused today but there's really not much that can be done about it. But to hear a political leader use it at a conference is so unreal to me. Then the question of the destruction of Israel -- he didn't answer. It's true, he has a point in that he can answer these questions in whatever way he wants. His answer was perfectly coherent; he loves the Jews. But personally "the Jews" and Israel are two very different things. Let's say he did destroy Israel. Would it be okay if he let the Jews live in Palestine then? He would let them live there out of the kindness of his heart because he loves them? The reason Jews have fought so hard to keep Israel all these years is because it helps define them. It's a part of who they are now, it's not just where they live. But i guess that Ahmadinejad did a very good job of skipping out on that answer. We still don't know whether or not he seeks the destruction of Israel. But it's okay because he loves the Jews. All and all I think that he was not treated properly when he went to Columbia to speak because of who he is and his status in politics; however, it's those two things that make me wonder where he truly stands with his political beliefs. I feel that there were times when he lacked a certain amount of respect towards our government and ultimately I think that he should chose his words a little more carefully next time.
I agree with Margaux and Jack about Bollinger. Sure, he has freedom of speech to say what he wants but I don't think a 10 minute rant on how uneducated the president is is at all productive. He might as well just call him "retarded" while he's at it.
I must say I don't know a lot about what is exactly going on with Iran, but I sensed so much tension and disrespect on both President Bollinger's and Ahmadinejad's part. After reading this article, I watched the video on the blog page and it seemed as though no real communication or discussion was going in the debate; both of them were just shooting disses and criticisms at each other. I understand that Iran has interest in "nuclear power" and I don't really think it's a good idea for Bollinger to be verbally attacking a leader of a country in the Middle East, a part of the world that we are currently at war with, a country that strongly dislikes Americans and Jews, and a country that has nuclear weapons and could potentially participate in a destructive nuclear war with the U.S. I do think it was fair of Bollinger to speak in response to Ahmadinejad's speech, but maybe he could have addressed him in a less disrespectful manner. I understand that probably felt the responsibility to stand up for the women and Jews in the audience and all throughout America, and I loved that because it shows so much what America is about in regards to free speech and nationalism and diversity, but I'm really scared about the future relationship we'll be having with Iran and the disrespect that was directed at Ahmadinejad seems totally unnecessary when considering the well-being of our country. Who knows if this debate is the last straw for Iran; I learned about WWII last year and saw Hiroshima in Japan as well, let's not repeat history with the Middle East!
Okay stupid question....but when Ahmadinejad said “We are friends of the Jews. There are many Jews living peacefully in Iran,” was he telling the truth? Or is that a lie? People seemed shocked by that statement.
Also, although I don't think Ahmadinejad did not give a very direct answer about whether Iran "seek[s] the destruction of Israel," a simple yes or no is almost too easy. Why would he want to reveal that with Americans? And maybe he sees strategy in keeping his real answer hidden. Except I personally would like to know; we'd be able to do something about it. But because we all want to know about Iran's action with Israel, that is probably just the reason why he won't tell us.
Nicole, I don't believe anyone truly deserves to be treated that way however, I do feel like he deserves some of the things Bollinger said to him. He has said much worse. I do feel like Bollinger took it way too far though.
So clearly he was treated poorly and had very narrow minded views about the Holocaust and homosexuality but I think there is more to it. First of all, the writer of the article speaks a lot about how defensive Ahmadinejad was and pointed out the times when he seemed uneducated. The article was written from a point of view looking down upon Ahmadinejad. Either way, I don't agree with his views but respect him for giving this speech. He was attacked by the president and most of the audience yet maintained his cool. I liked how he said it was Persian tradition to be respectful and was thinking how many times I have heard that in my life. It is very ironic when he says that Iran is a friend of the Jews and that Jews live peacefully in Iran; Iran has the largest Jewish population in the Middle East and there are about 35,000 living there now but at the same time my parents and many other families fled Iran around the time of the Revolution in ’79 because it was so unsafe for them. For example, my grandpa was put on the Black List and there were signs on the streets to find him because he helped Jews flee to Israel on secret planes at night. Why was Iran mandating that the Jews stayed in the dangerous Iran? Because they were friendly with them? I don’t think so. There are video clips of the discussion on the side and Bollinger makes a fool of himself. He was petty and was like a bully. His remarks about being incapable of answering a question was uncalled for and although we wanted a clear cut answer, it is a politicians skill to be able to leave a question unanswered. In the audience, it was very exciting to see the president of their school being so aggressive and in my opinion, influenced them to look down upon Ahmadinejad.
Rebecca, that's the thing, Bollinger basically did call him that by saying he is "astonishingly uneducated." Bollinger didn't represent his school in a great way at all. His approach to this situation was "astonishingly uneducated" in a way.
From what is read I believe that this was just stupid, on parts of both parties. First having Ahmadinejad come and talk about how he believes there are no homosexuals in Iran or the holocaust isn’t real, is just plain ignorance. I don’t think we should be having nonproductive talks with this person, ever. Bollinger was, if not just as bad, even worse! He was just rude, virtually saying how the leader of Iran is a retard. Even if this man is the head of a terror supporting state, he still has the right to speak freely. He is not an idiot he just has beliefs that we consider ridiculous, but they are his beliefs none the less and we should have SOME respect for that. This is the land of the free, but I guess that only applies to some people.
I completely agree with jack’s last comment. That by attacking Ahmadinejad verbally like this just makes him look cowardly. And makes not only Columbia but also the United States look bad.
I believe that by bringing Ahmadinejad to Columbia was just asking for trouble. People were clearly aware of his standing views on many situations and I believe that Bollinger invited him to be able to badger him. I believe that the way Bollinger belittled Ahmadinejad was very inappropriate because no one deserves to be treated that way just because they don't agree with what your saying.
Just like Charlie said, I believe that by insulting Ahmadinejad, Bollinger just made himself look bad. Yes in many things that he said I agree with but he should have realized that by attacking another person in that manner would only make himself look bad. -Sayumi
Although I do not support or agree with any of Ahmadinejad's ideas or beliefs, I feel that Bollinger was wrong to introduce him in such a harsh manner. As a supporter of terrorism, Ahmadinejad does not deserve "respect" from Bollinger, however, he could have been treated with a little more decency. I agree with everything Bollinger stated, but his comments were presented at an inappropriate time. Besides humiliating himself and Columbia, Bollinger elevated Ahmadinejad's power by referring to him as a dictator. Ahmadinejad does not have that much power in Iran, however, if people call him a "dictator," he will eventually become one. As Americans, we value freedom of speech, regardless of who it applies to. Though both Bollinger and Ahmadinejad voiced extreme opinions, they are entitled to the first ammendment rights.
I completely agree with Amanda's comments. Rather than moving closer to peace with the Middle East, this assembly created more animosity between the United States and Iran. Ahmadinejad already hates Americans and Jews, and the disrespect he felt at Columbia will make him less likely to create peace with the U.S.
I don't really understand why Columbia invited Ahmadinejad.
I think I read that the point was to present and grasp a different viewpoint, to really see the political discrepancies between nations, but it almost seems as if Columbia called upon Ahmadinejad to ridicule him in front of a well-educated audience. Yes, this man of Iran may be seen as a threat, given that his policies differ greatly with those of the States. Yes, he is rather outspoken and recklessly bold in what he says. But the fact that Bollinger confronted this manner in such an insulting and rude way--it simply was not proper, however immoral or short-sighted his policies and thoughts may be.
It was a bit disturbing to see, and read of course, Bollinger uprightly insulting Ahmadienjad, who at that point had said nothing, and the majority of the audience cheering such treatment. In the overall perspective, it shows that most of us would much rather look down upon and insult people such as Ahmadienjad instead of trying to come into understanding of his terms. It's truly difficult to reserve the right to label Ahmadienjad with ignorance when the Columbian audience, including Bollinger, were ignorant of the man himself, entering the auditorium with negative preconceptions.
I strongly agree with what Charlie said--that Ahmandinejad just has beliefs that we think are immoral and threatening to our nation. It is also true that this man is not one of stupidity, is not necessarily uneducated, nor is lacking of the ability to think for himself.
We all know Ahmandinejad was never invited so that we could all embrace his mindset of history and the world today, but rather to hear him speak of opinions rarely heard of in this country. The purpose was to further educate in a global sense the students, graduates, and whoever else had come to Columbia to listen to the speaker.
Ahmadinejad did deserve some respect for having the courage to, however defiantly, speak of his causes and to be heard. It was never about agreeing to his sometimes even ridiculous theories, but about understanding it and realizing it.
I agree with Candace about how making such fun of Ahmadi will just make him have mixed feelings about makeing peace with the U.S. because he'd generalize the public as being as obnoxious as the American's he saw that day. Agree with pretty much every single person that said Bolliger was out of line. It was interesting to read how the interview was more like a cat fight that a civilized talk. I love when the president says "You ask a question then you want the answer the way you want to hear it" then asks him and reciprocates a question and want it in yes or no format too. It's actually pretty funny how they spoke to each other. And I agree with what Yoonkee said; we don't have to agree with anwything that he beleives but his invitation was a way to just experience it.
Paulina p.s I'm bringing a video camera for our documentary on monday. Get excited.
I agree with Andrea. I was super surprised to find myself embarressed of how our nation treated this speaker. Even though some of his beliefs are outrageous, which i would have loved to see him provide evidence for both the holoacaust comment and the homosexual one, at least he spoke with dignity and respect. Bollinger was just downright disgusting and just gives those who dislike america dislike it more. His comments judging Ahmadinjad's intelligence were ridiculous or i would even go so far as to say immature. Also the whole conference backfired because although they were trying to show how great america is with its freedom of speech, they verbally attacked Ahmadinjad so he wasnt even able to be free in his speech. I love and actually laughed out loud when Ahmadinjad made the point that we werent ever satisfied with his answers because they werent what we wanted to hear or what we thought was right. Although i strongly disagree with sooo many of Ahmadinejads opinions I completely respect him as a speaker after readiing this article
I was very shocked when I read this article.. I feel like Columbia invited Ahmadinejad just to give the impression that they were open to all opinions around the world. I'm not saying that they're not open minded, but it's hard to believe that they (aka Bollinger) are when a situation like this occurs. I believe both people are at fault--both of them handled it in unacceptable ways.
Im shocked that Columbia actually invited Ahmadinejad to speak at their campus. Surely Bollinger knew it would only cause chaos and conflicting sides, and the whole ordeal turned out to be a fiasco. It seems as though Columbia only invited him to bring public attention to their campus, an attempt to show that the faculty and students of the school are diverse and open-minded to other views. I feel as though Bollinger handled the situation rather terribly. First, he invites Ahmadinejad to speak at his campus. Later, however, instead of warmly greeting him for accepting the offer, he publicly calls him out before Ahmadinejad even has a chance to speak or defend himself, a very unclassy act in my opinion.
I agree with both brittany and andrea. rather than give Ahmadinejad a bad name, as Bollinger intended, he instead gave himself one. the disrespect he displayed towards a PRESIDENT of a different country is unforgivable and unfair. He disgraced America with his comments and gives the supporters of Ahmadienjad in Iran more reasons to look down upon us.
I agree that Ahmadinejad was treated disrespectfully. Despite my disagreement with Bollinger's actions, I don't understand why that comes as a shock to so many people. I think that had Bollinger remained silent or supported Ahmadinejad's right to opinion, just as many, if not more people would be objecting to his behavior. He was making an attempt to appeal to the majority of the crowd, and he probably did. In addition I was a little bit surprised by Bush's commenting that Columbia University's actions and decisions to let Ahmadinejad speak highlighted one of the most basic liberties upon which the United States is founded, but he himself, as the leader of the United States, wouldn't have done so.
In response to Rebecca's taking offence to Ahmadinejad's use of the word "retarded" to describe certain politicians *cough* bush *cough*, and surprise at the influence he has: 1. He first describes those certain politicians as "backward" a word that actually has the same connotation as retarded, that being retrogressive or slow (in fact it's considered a synonym). In addition he's not calling those politicians mentally retarded, but politically retarded. 2. I think that the influence bush has is just a prevalent and politically retarded as Ahmadinejad's. He's led the entire country into a "war against terror", against, specifically, the terrorists that attaced the WTC on 9/11. However, he has somehow linked that with Iraq, and has claimed victory to the "war on terror" by overthrowing a "tirant", and creating political turmoil, stalemate, and eminent civil war in a country completely unrelated to the organization which carried out the attacks. If we're going to worry about the influence political leaders have, I think we should start at home.
I find it hilarious how Bollinger completely took Ahmadinejad coming as an opportunity to slash him, rather than welcome him. That is extremely immature on his behalf -- I was surprised to see such behavior from the president of Columbia University! He used bitter accusations and rude connotations with no factual background, just presumed and vague statements that made him look like the "astonishingly uneducated" one. I was impressed with Ahmadinejad's response to the horrible introduction -- he was perfectly sarcastic and impressively honest.
Bush's remarks on the manner were ridiculously close-minded. "Sponsor of terror"? Excuse me, you're running our country? It just further proves a lack of ambition, on his behalf, to reach better means through actually respecting Ahmadinejad, difference in beliefs or not.
I, however, find it ignorant that Ahmadinejad stated there were no homosexuals in his country, nor that the Holocaust was even factual -- those are extremely bold statements to make without any background. Regardless, I am extremely impressed by his honesty. He was completely disrespected, and yet he persisted admireably. He proved himself worthy to be called a good speaker, if anything.
I know some students who intended who agree that Bollinger ended up looking foolish and embarrassing Columbia. It's a shame that he did not apply "freedom of speech" and beliefs to his guest.
i agree with most everyone (it seems to be the same opinion all around) that Bollinger's plans to sabotage Ahmadinejad's speech completely backfired. I do not believe this could have been achieved without Ahmadinejad's persistance, rhetorical humor, and strong speaking skills.
Rebecca-- I think you missed the point. Obviously some of what he said to Columbia is considered ignorant, but surely you must understand that his normal audience is truly dependent upon his words and do not know better? I do not believe that he thinks the whole world doesn't believe the Holocaust happened.
And I completely disagree about what you said regarding his lack of respect towards OUR government, when Bush's statement completely shows lack of respect to him, as well as all that Bollinger said. They beyond belittled him. I think it is natural human nature to retaliate, no?
For years, Ahmadinejad has been condemned internationally for ordering Israel to be “wiped off the map,” and labeling the holocaust as a “myth” to make the innocent Palestinian pay. These beliefs are nothing new. Bush calls him “the head of a state sponsor of terror” in the recent article, but Ahmadinejad has been labeled as a corrupt leader for years. It is fair to say that Ahmadinejad has had a bad reputation in America, The students at Columbia University represented our disapproval of his beliefs.
The Columbian students did not do anything wrong. When a guest comes to suggest his own ideas that we may not agree to, it is fair to reject or question his speech. The university achieved their goal in practicing a “freedom of speech” because the ideas of the Columbian students were not being censored. The students expressed freely in a non-violent protest how they felt about Ahmadinejad’s words. The Ahmadinejad supporters were outnumbered by a 7:3 ratio according to the article. A clash between the supporters and non-supporters was inevitable.
Here’s a particular portion of the article that supports my view:
Mr. Bush, asked about Columbia’s decision to invite Mr. Ahmadinejad, told Fox News that it was “O.K. with me,” but added that he might not have extended the invitation himself.
Bush would not have extended the invitation to Ahmadinejad because of the chaos it might have stirred at the campus. Students will not listen to a terrorist figure for 2 hours without a single protest. It’s impossible. Bush foresaw the possible reaction of the Columbian students, and knew that their would be heated protest against Ahmadinejad’s speech.
I disagree with all other posts on this blog. The speech was not an embarrassment for our country. The students were not being rude, they were only practicing their academic freedom. The Iranian president preached his ideas, and the student’s reacted. The protests against the terrorist figure were definitely expected. If Ahmadinejad did not want to hear any rejection to his speech, then he should not have come at all.
This was an interesting debate -- I wonder what you all think of Iran and whether or not the US should be concerned with their attempts to use nuclear power. I appreciate your sensibility that Bollinger was rude -- but I also wonder if you think that Ahmadinejad is as much of a threat as the administration makes him out to be. Is he the next Hussein?
Overall, nice commentary. I missed hearing from some of you twice! stay on top of it, ok.
34 comments:
Personally, I really did not like how Ahmadinejad was treated during his visit to Columbia. Even though he is the head of a state sponser of terror, he does deserve to be treated with respect. I am definitely not saying that I agree with the statements that he said or issues that he chose to ignore, but I feel that the United States is responsible for setting an example to the rest of the world. I hated how Bollinger suggested how he might be "astonishingly uneducated" or lacking in "intellectual courage to answer" the questions asked. The United States is known for its freedom of speech, so why neglect a foreigner who is only sharing his opinion? Isn't that why Columbia asked him to speak in the first place? Ahmadinejad already proved he had courage by speaking at a school who clearly opposed his ideas. I felt that Bollinger could have approached the situation while still sharing the same opinions. However, I did hate how Ahmadinejad refused to believe that there were any homosexuals in his country and that the Holocaust was only a theory. While very hated, Ahmadinejad did approach the situation well and did not back down which is respectable.I completely understand everything the Bollinger was saying, but I really hated how he had a complete lack of respect of the president of Iran.
Although it is hard to make a decision regarding the appropriateness about a speaker such as Ahmadinejad at a major university, it is easy to realize that both Columbia and Bollinger himself completely embarassed themselves. It is extremely unprofessional to attack a speaker before they've even had a chance to speak. It is completely appalling that Bollinger would do something like that, especially when you consider the fact that their invitation to Ahmadinejad was so controversial. Had Columbia actually committed to backing Ahmadinejad, then I believe that they would be applauded for it. The public would have understood the kind of courage that it takes to allow a speaker of that nature into your school and allow him to speak his mind; however, by verbally abusing Ahmadinejad and claiming that he is uneducated and lacks "intellectual courage" Columbia is actively creating a way out for themselves in case the public becomes outraged by Ahmadinejad's statements. It is very ironic that Bollinger states that Ahmadinejad lacks "intellectual courage" because by making these remarks, he appears as the ultimate coward.
-Jack
I personally feel that bringing Ahmadinejad, to Columbia could have truly been a good opportunity for the students of Columbia to get a different perspective of these world events; however, it did not turn out as well as I would have hoped. After Bollinger, president of Columbia, invited Ahmadinejad to speak, he completely bombards him with insults and questions he only wanted answered one way. He did not fully give him the opportunity to speak freely. He did not approach this in the right manner and I feel it hurt the overall outcome of the speech/event. On the other hand, in my opinion, Ahmadinejad deserved such treatment in some aspects. He is completely incorrect about the majority of the things he says, such as saying holocaust never existed and that there are no homosexuals in Iran. He is out of his mind to believe such things. There is hard evidence to prove that the holocaust truly existed and he is being narrow-minded, stubborn and idiotic to hold on to his belief. When it comes to having no homosexuals in Iran, again, it is known that approximately 1 of 10 people are homosexual. It is hard to grasp that someone could be so greatly unaware of history and his own people. I do not believe he knows every individual and can say he knows, for a fact, that there are no homosexuals in his country. It is absurd.
I think choosing a controversial speaker to come and speak is an excellent idea but was it the right choice to bring Ahmadinejad? Was is right to not let him share his story and ideas, whether it may be right or wrong? Students at Columbia are educated enough to think for themselves and come up with their own view of world politics.
I agree with Jack when he says Bollinger embarrassed himself along with Columbia. However, not only did he embarrass himself and his school, but he also embarrassed the United States. We are known as a country of free speech, yet Bollinger did the exact and complete opposite. He was rude and I'm sure Ahmadinejad didn't get to say half the things he had wanted to. This speech/event turned out to be almost a waste of time. I don't believe students could have gotten much from it however, I could be wrong.
One thing that got me was the first paragraph. Ahmadinejad states that there are no homosexuals in Iran and that the holocaust was just a theory. One, unless he knows everyone in Iran personally, he can't lump everyone together in a category. How can he be sure that not a single person is homosexual, when sometimes, that person doesn’t even know. Two, there are facts that the holocaust happened. Look at Auschwitz and Birkenau. I was there this past summer and saw the buildings that “housed” the Jews (more like packed them away), the crematoriums, as well as some of the Jew’s belongings that were confiscated. The many museums have pictures of Jews (and others) literally being worked to death, pictures showing how emaciated they were from lack of food and pictures of the mass graves, where everyone who died was unceremoniously thrown in. Not only that, but there are still people alive who survived the holocaust and can describe just how badly they were treated.
Nevertheless, although I don't agree with many of Ahmadinejad's statements, I do believe that he could have been treated with more respect. It really boiled my blood when Mr. Bollinger said that he doubted that Ahmadinejad would have “intellectual courage to answer these questions”. Bollinger just made the U.S. seem really cocky and arrogant. And despite being told repeatedly that he is uneducated, he “wore a frozen smile”. Also, “Mr. Bollinger praised himself and Columbia for showing they believed in freedom of speech by inviting the Iranian president” near the beginning of his speech and yet, he wouldn’t let Ahmadinejad answer the questions that he was asked. So, what was the point of saying that you believe in the freedom of speech. Ahmadinejad said it perfectly, “You ask the question and then you want the answer the way you want to hear it.” If Bollinger really believed in the freedom of speech, he would have let Ahmadinejad speak.
Margaux - you said that Ahmadinejad deserved the treatment he received. I disagree with you on that point. Despite what he said, no matter how absurd or untrue it is, does not meant that people can throw away their morals and verbally attack someone.
Frankly, it scares that someone like Ahmadinejad has so much influence and power over certain people and ethnic groups today. It shocks me to hear anyone say that something as notorious in history as the Holocaust is just a "theory". What, the idea of the Holocaust was a hypothetical situation? It's not crucial to say 'who did it' anymore, no one's trying to point fingers -- but you should at least acknowledge that it happened. Then, to go on and used the word "retarded". That was completely unnecessary to me. Out of every derogatory term he could have used, he chose the word retarded. Personally, it bothers me when anyone uses this word. I think that it's too commonly misused today but there's really not much that can be done about it. But to hear a political leader use it at a conference is so unreal to me. Then the question of the destruction of Israel -- he didn't answer. It's true, he has a point in that he can answer these questions in whatever way he wants. His answer was perfectly coherent; he loves the Jews. But personally "the Jews" and Israel are two very different things. Let's say he did destroy Israel. Would it be okay if he let the Jews live in Palestine then? He would let them live there out of the kindness of his heart because he loves them? The reason Jews have fought so hard to keep Israel all these years is because it helps define them. It's a part of who they are now, it's not just where they live. But i guess that Ahmadinejad did a very good job of skipping out on that answer. We still don't know whether or not he seeks the destruction of Israel. But it's okay because he loves the Jews. All and all I think that he was not treated properly when he went to Columbia to speak because of who he is and his status in politics; however, it's those two things that make me wonder where he truly stands with his political beliefs. I feel that there were times when he lacked a certain amount of respect towards our government and ultimately I think that he should chose his words a little more carefully next time.
I agree with Margaux and Jack about Bollinger. Sure, he has freedom of speech to say what he wants but I don't think a 10 minute rant on how uneducated the president is is at all productive. He might as well just call him "retarded" while he's at it.
I must say I don't know a lot about what is exactly going on with Iran, but I sensed so much tension and disrespect on both President Bollinger's and Ahmadinejad's part. After reading this article, I watched the video on the blog page and it seemed as though no real communication or discussion was going in the debate; both of them were just shooting disses and criticisms at each other. I understand that Iran has interest in "nuclear power" and I don't really think it's a good idea for Bollinger to be verbally attacking a leader of a country in the Middle East, a part of the world that we are currently at war with, a country that strongly dislikes Americans and Jews, and a country that has nuclear weapons and could potentially participate in a destructive nuclear war with the U.S. I do think it was fair of Bollinger to speak in response to Ahmadinejad's speech, but maybe he could have addressed him in a less disrespectful manner. I understand that probably felt the responsibility to stand up for the women and Jews in the audience and all throughout America, and I loved that because it shows so much what America is about in regards to free speech and nationalism and diversity, but I'm really scared about the future relationship we'll be having with Iran and the disrespect that was directed at Ahmadinejad seems totally unnecessary when considering the well-being of our country. Who knows if this debate is the last straw for Iran; I learned about WWII last year and saw Hiroshima in Japan as well, let's not repeat history with the Middle East!
Okay stupid question....but when Ahmadinejad said “We are friends of the Jews. There are many Jews living peacefully in Iran,” was he telling the truth? Or is that a lie? People seemed shocked by that statement.
Also, although I don't think Ahmadinejad did not give a very direct answer about whether Iran "seek[s] the destruction of Israel," a simple yes or no is almost too easy. Why would he want to reveal that with Americans? And maybe he sees strategy in keeping his real answer hidden. Except I personally would like to know; we'd be able to do something about it. But because we all want to know about Iran's action with Israel, that is probably just the reason why he won't tell us.
Nicole, I don't believe anyone truly deserves to be treated that way however, I do feel like he deserves some of the things Bollinger said to him. He has said much worse. I do feel like Bollinger took it way too far though.
So clearly he was treated poorly and had very narrow minded views about the Holocaust and homosexuality but I think there is more to it. First of all, the writer of the article speaks a lot about how defensive Ahmadinejad was and pointed out the times when he seemed uneducated. The article was written from a point of view looking down upon Ahmadinejad.
Either way, I don't agree with his views but respect him for giving this speech. He was attacked by the president and most of the audience yet maintained his cool. I liked how he said it was Persian tradition to be respectful and was thinking how many times I have heard that in my life.
It is very ironic when he says that Iran is a friend of the Jews and that Jews live peacefully in Iran; Iran has the largest Jewish population in the Middle East and there are about 35,000 living there now but at the same time my parents and many other families fled Iran around the time of the Revolution in ’79 because it was so unsafe for them. For example, my grandpa was put on the Black List and there were signs on the streets to find him because he helped Jews flee to Israel on secret planes at night. Why was Iran mandating that the Jews stayed in the dangerous Iran? Because they were friendly with them? I don’t think so.
There are video clips of the discussion on the side and Bollinger makes a fool of himself. He was petty and was like a bully. His remarks about being incapable of answering a question was uncalled for and although we wanted a clear cut answer, it is a politicians skill to be able to leave a question unanswered. In the audience, it was very exciting to see the president of their school being so aggressive and in my opinion, influenced them to look down upon Ahmadinejad.
Paulina Leah Shahery
Rebecca, that's the thing, Bollinger basically did call him that by saying he is "astonishingly uneducated." Bollinger didn't represent his school in a great way at all. His approach to this situation was "astonishingly uneducated" in a way.
From what is read I believe that this was just stupid, on parts of both parties. First having Ahmadinejad come and talk about how he believes there are no homosexuals in Iran or the holocaust isn’t real, is just plain ignorance. I don’t think we should be having nonproductive talks with this person, ever. Bollinger was, if not just as bad, even worse! He was just rude, virtually saying how the leader of Iran is a retard. Even if this man is the head of a terror supporting state, he still has the right to speak freely. He is not an idiot he just has beliefs that we consider ridiculous, but they are his beliefs none the less and we should have SOME respect for that. This is the land of the free, but I guess that only applies to some people.
I completely agree with jack’s last comment. That by attacking Ahmadinejad verbally like this just makes him look cowardly. And makes not only Columbia but also the United States look bad.
I believe that by bringing Ahmadinejad to Columbia was just asking for trouble. People were clearly aware of his standing views on many situations and I believe that Bollinger invited him to be able to badger him. I believe that the way Bollinger belittled Ahmadinejad was very inappropriate because no one deserves to be treated that way just because they don't agree with what your saying.
Just like Charlie said, I believe that by insulting Ahmadinejad, Bollinger just made himself look bad. Yes in many things that he said I agree with but he should have realized that by attacking another person in that manner would only make himself look bad.
-Sayumi
Although I do not support or agree with any of Ahmadinejad's ideas or beliefs, I feel that Bollinger was wrong to introduce him in such a harsh manner. As a supporter of terrorism, Ahmadinejad does not deserve "respect" from Bollinger, however, he could have been treated with a little more decency. I agree with everything Bollinger stated, but his comments were presented at an inappropriate time.
Besides humiliating himself and Columbia, Bollinger elevated Ahmadinejad's power by referring to him as a dictator. Ahmadinejad does not have that much power in Iran, however, if people call him a "dictator," he will eventually become one. As Americans, we value freedom of speech, regardless of who it applies to. Though both Bollinger and Ahmadinejad voiced extreme opinions, they are entitled to the first ammendment rights.
-Candace
I completely agree with Amanda's comments. Rather than moving closer to peace with the Middle East, this assembly created more animosity between the United States and Iran. Ahmadinejad already hates Americans and Jews, and the disrespect he felt at Columbia will make him less likely to create peace with the U.S.
-Candace
I don't really understand why Columbia invited Ahmadinejad.
I think I read that the point was to present and grasp a different viewpoint, to really see the political discrepancies between nations, but it almost seems as if Columbia called upon Ahmadinejad to ridicule him in front of a well-educated audience. Yes, this man of Iran may be seen as a threat, given that his policies differ greatly with those of the States. Yes, he is rather outspoken and recklessly bold in what he says. But the fact that Bollinger confronted this manner in such an insulting and rude way--it simply was not proper, however immoral or short-sighted his policies and thoughts may be.
It was a bit disturbing to see, and read of course, Bollinger uprightly insulting Ahmadienjad, who at that point had said nothing, and the majority of the audience cheering such treatment. In the overall perspective, it shows that most of us would much rather look down upon and insult people such as Ahmadienjad instead of trying to come into understanding of his terms. It's truly difficult to reserve the right to label Ahmadienjad with ignorance when the Columbian audience, including Bollinger, were ignorant of the man himself, entering the auditorium with negative preconceptions.
I strongly agree with what Charlie said--that Ahmandinejad just has beliefs that we think are immoral and threatening to our nation. It is also true that this man is not one of stupidity, is not necessarily uneducated, nor is lacking of the ability to think for himself.
We all know Ahmandinejad was never invited so that we could all embrace his mindset of history and the world today, but rather to hear him speak of opinions rarely heard of in this country. The purpose was to further educate in a global sense the students, graduates, and whoever else had come to Columbia to listen to the speaker.
Ahmadinejad did deserve some respect for having the courage to, however defiantly, speak of his causes and to be heard. It was never about agreeing to his sometimes even ridiculous theories, but about understanding it and realizing it.
I agree with Candace about how making such fun of Ahmadi will just make him have mixed feelings about makeing peace with the U.S. because he'd generalize the public as being as obnoxious as the American's he saw that day.
Agree with pretty much every single person that said Bolliger was out of line.
It was interesting to read how the interview was more like a cat fight that a civilized talk. I love when the president says "You ask a question then you want the answer the way you want to hear it" then asks him and reciprocates a question and want it in yes or no format too. It's actually pretty funny how they spoke to each other.
And I agree with what Yoonkee said; we don't have to agree with anwything that he beleives but his invitation was a way to just experience it.
Paulina
p.s I'm bringing a video camera for our documentary on monday.
Get excited.
I agree with Andrea. I was super surprised to find myself embarressed of how our nation treated this speaker. Even though some of his beliefs are outrageous, which i would have loved to see him provide evidence for both the holoacaust comment and the homosexual one, at least he spoke with dignity and respect. Bollinger was just downright disgusting and just gives those who dislike america dislike it more. His comments judging Ahmadinjad's intelligence were ridiculous or i would even go so far as to say immature. Also the whole conference backfired because although they were trying to show how great america is with its freedom of speech, they verbally attacked Ahmadinjad so he wasnt even able to be free in his speech. I love and actually laughed out loud when Ahmadinjad made the point that we werent ever satisfied with his answers because they werent what we wanted to hear or what we thought was right. Although i strongly disagree with sooo many of Ahmadinejads opinions I completely respect him as a speaker after readiing this article
I was very shocked when I read this article.. I feel like Columbia invited Ahmadinejad just to give the impression that they were open to all opinions around the world. I'm not saying that they're not open minded, but it's hard to believe that they (aka Bollinger) are when a situation like this occurs. I believe both people are at fault--both of them handled it in unacceptable ways.
Im shocked that Columbia actually invited Ahmadinejad to speak at their campus. Surely Bollinger knew it would only cause chaos and conflicting sides, and the whole ordeal turned out to be a fiasco. It seems as though Columbia only invited him to bring public attention to their campus, an attempt to show that the faculty and students of the school are diverse and open-minded to other views. I feel as though Bollinger handled the situation rather terribly. First, he invites Ahmadinejad to speak at his campus. Later, however, instead of warmly greeting him for accepting the offer, he publicly calls him out before Ahmadinejad even has a chance to speak or defend himself, a very unclassy act in my opinion.
I agree with both brittany and andrea. rather than give Ahmadinejad a bad name, as Bollinger intended, he instead gave himself one. the disrespect he displayed towards a PRESIDENT of a different country is unforgivable and unfair. He disgraced America with his comments and gives the supporters of Ahmadienjad in Iran more reasons to look down upon us.
I agree that Ahmadinejad was treated disrespectfully. Despite my disagreement with Bollinger's actions, I don't understand why that comes as a shock to so many people. I think that had Bollinger remained silent or supported Ahmadinejad's right to opinion, just as many, if not more people would be objecting to his behavior. He was making an attempt to appeal to the majority of the crowd, and he probably did. In addition I was a little bit surprised by Bush's commenting that Columbia University's actions and decisions to let Ahmadinejad speak highlighted one of the most basic liberties upon which the United States is founded, but he himself, as the leader of the United States, wouldn't have done so.
In response to Rebecca's taking offence to Ahmadinejad's use of the word "retarded" to describe certain politicians *cough* bush *cough*, and surprise at the influence he has:
1. He first describes those certain politicians as "backward" a word that actually has the same connotation as retarded, that being retrogressive or slow (in fact it's considered a synonym). In addition he's not calling those politicians mentally retarded, but politically retarded.
2. I think that the influence bush has is just a prevalent and politically retarded as Ahmadinejad's. He's led the entire country into a "war against terror", against, specifically, the terrorists that attaced the WTC on 9/11. However, he has somehow linked that with Iraq, and has claimed victory to the "war on terror" by overthrowing a "tirant", and creating political turmoil, stalemate, and eminent civil war in a country completely unrelated to the organization which carried out the attacks. If we're going to worry about the influence political leaders have, I think we should start at home.
I find it hilarious how Bollinger completely took Ahmadinejad coming as an opportunity to slash him, rather than welcome him. That is extremely immature on his behalf -- I was surprised to see such behavior from the president of Columbia University! He used bitter accusations and rude connotations with no factual background, just presumed and vague statements that made him look like the "astonishingly uneducated" one. I was impressed with Ahmadinejad's response to the horrible introduction -- he was perfectly sarcastic and impressively honest.
Bush's remarks on the manner were ridiculously close-minded. "Sponsor of terror"? Excuse me, you're running our country? It just further proves a lack of ambition, on his behalf, to reach better means through actually respecting Ahmadinejad, difference in beliefs or not.
I, however, find it ignorant that Ahmadinejad stated there were no homosexuals in his country, nor that the Holocaust was even factual -- those are extremely bold statements to make without any background. Regardless, I am extremely impressed by his honesty. He was completely disrespected, and yet he persisted admireably. He proved himself worthy to be called a good speaker, if anything.
I know some students who intended who agree that Bollinger ended up looking foolish and embarrassing Columbia. It's a shame that he did not apply "freedom of speech" and beliefs to his guest.
by students who intended, i meant attended.....
i agree with most everyone (it seems to be the same opinion all around) that Bollinger's plans to sabotage Ahmadinejad's speech completely backfired. I do not believe this could have been achieved without Ahmadinejad's persistance, rhetorical humor, and strong speaking skills.
Rebecca-- I think you missed the point. Obviously some of what he said to Columbia is considered ignorant, but surely you must understand that his normal audience is truly dependent upon his words and do not know better? I do not believe that he thinks the whole world doesn't believe the Holocaust happened.
And I completely disagree about what you said regarding his lack of respect towards OUR government, when Bush's statement completely shows lack of respect to him, as well as all that Bollinger said. They beyond belittled him. I think it is natural human nature to retaliate, no?
Gina-- well said.
All in all, I think the entire sitch is just embarassing.
For years, Ahmadinejad has been condemned internationally for ordering Israel to be “wiped off the map,” and labeling the holocaust as a “myth” to make the innocent Palestinian pay. These beliefs are nothing new. Bush calls him “the head of a state sponsor of terror” in the recent article, but Ahmadinejad has been labeled as a corrupt leader for years. It is fair to say that Ahmadinejad has had a bad reputation in America, The students at Columbia University represented our disapproval of his beliefs.
The Columbian students did not do anything wrong. When a guest comes to suggest his own ideas that we may not agree to, it is fair to reject or question his speech. The university achieved their goal in practicing a “freedom of speech” because the ideas of the Columbian students were not being censored. The students expressed freely in a non-violent protest how they felt about Ahmadinejad’s words. The Ahmadinejad supporters were outnumbered by a 7:3 ratio according to the article. A clash between the supporters and non-supporters was inevitable.
Here’s a particular portion of the article that supports my view:
Mr. Bush, asked about Columbia’s decision to invite Mr. Ahmadinejad, told Fox News that it was “O.K. with me,” but added that he might not have extended the invitation himself.
Bush would not have extended the invitation to Ahmadinejad because of the chaos it might have stirred at the campus. Students will not listen to a terrorist figure for 2 hours without a single protest. It’s impossible. Bush foresaw the possible reaction of the Columbian students, and knew that their would be heated protest against Ahmadinejad’s speech.
I disagree with all other posts on this blog. The speech was not an embarrassment for our country. The students were not being rude, they were only practicing their academic freedom. The Iranian president preached his ideas, and the student’s reacted. The protests against the terrorist figure were definitely expected. If Ahmadinejad did not want to hear any rejection to his speech, then he should not have come at all.
This was an interesting debate -- I wonder what you all think of Iran and whether or not the US should be concerned with their attempts to use nuclear power. I appreciate your sensibility that Bollinger was rude -- but I also wonder if you think that Ahmadinejad is as much of a threat as the administration makes him out to be. Is he the next Hussein?
Overall, nice commentary. I missed hearing from some of you twice! stay on top of it, ok.
Post a Comment