History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
Should Columbia Have Invited Ahmadinejad to Speak?
by Cliopatria
HNN welcomes your comments.
You do not have to register to participate in this poll for the first two weeks; after that, registration is required. We do ask all readers to abide by our civility guidelines whether they register or not.
To participate in our poll simply drop down to the bottom of this page and click on the word"Comments."
Lee Bollinger Mr. Bollinger is president of Columbia University.
In a December 2005 state television broadcast, you described the Holocaust as a “fabricated” “legend.” One year later, you held a two-day conference of Holocaust deniers.
For the illiterate and ignorant, this is dangerous propaganda. When you come to a place like this, this makes you, quite simply, ridiculous. You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated.
Deborah Lipstadt Ms. Lipstadt is Professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies at Emory University and author of History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving.
Columbia's Dean John H. Coatsworth, in the name of defending the university's invitation to Ahmadinejad, told Fox News that the institute would have invited Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler to appear before students had he been willing to participate in an open debate.
This is one of those posts that needs no comment.
Rafael Medoff Dr. Medoff is director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, www.WymanInstitute.org).
As Prof. Stephen Norwood of the University of Oklahoma has found in his research on the academic community’s response to Hitler in the 1930s, Columbia was not the only prominent U.S. university to behave shamefully with regard to the Nazis. Harvard hosted a visit by Hitler’s foreign press spokesman, Ernst “Putzi” Hanfstaengl. American University chancellor Joseph Gray visited and praised Nazi Germany. MIT Dean Harold Lobdell personally tore down posters for a rally against a Nazi warship docked in Boston’s harbor, and MIT participated in a 1937 celebration at the Nazi-controlled University of Goettingen. Yale, Princeton, Bryn Mawr, and others continued student exchanges with Nazi Germany into the late 1930s, and more than twenty U.S. colleges and universities took part in the 1936 Heidelberg event.
But Columbia is unique in one important respect. Its administration alone seems to have learned so little from the mistakes of the 1930s that it is prepared to welcome the leader of yet another antisemitic, terrorist regime.
It is whether the USA, at its most educated and refined, can tolerate to hear and listen to something that the neo cons and the Zionists do NOT it to be told.
Should the USA insist on not hearing and NOT listening to what others have to say that would be another sign of its decline.
user -
9/30/2007
The sign of the decline of the rest of the world, which threatens to pull the U.S. along with it in its disastrous course, is the tradition many among them hold for not being able to withstand the honest criticism of what they say and stand for. Respect and honor is more important to many of them than is truth or debate. And God help us if we cannot find a way, in the age of the internet, to put into power more savvy if not savvily mendacious leaders, a la Clinton, who can lyingly convince the barbarians at the gate that they deserve all the lavish praise they and their despotisms crave, while finding a credible way of avoiding a way to engage them in their dysfunctional and inhumane political crafts.
While America and its allies in the West, as the most open societies - the ones most capable of harnessing the talents of its citizens - are surely destined to lead, the many who remain many levels of civilization beneath ours still need to feel important despite all the troubles they create. So Omar is not so far off the mark in understanding the unrealized American need to quietly play one off the other in their inevitably dysfunctional dynamic in some cases, while in many others, just getting out of the way and letting them kill each other off in way that their vengeful and honor-obsessed mythologies require them to do. And our useful and ideologically non-hostile allies will be all the better off and will grow stronger with us and as a whole for it.
Andy Moursund -
9/30/2007
I'd have invited him to Columbia---to debate an Iranian dissident who would then have his sentence communted and be granted asylum in the country of his choice.
Ignacio -
9/29/2007
It seems that people still don't know who are semites. Not only the israelis but also the Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrians all are descendants of Sem. So nobody critizising the israelis is anti-semitical.
AT -
9/27/2007
If we ignore evil, if we don't speak it, if we don't look at it, if we don't hear it, if we pretend it doesn't exist....it will cease to exist?
Embracing depravity is not confronting and grappling with evil. Embracing depravity is thinking it will disappear if we look the other way.
kim carsons -
9/27/2007
yes it seems obviously a riduculing platform. which he didnt help himself very much with with his references to homosexuals and the myth of the halocaust. still he raised a very important point and one that needs to be made - should the palestinian people become the victim's victims? and he has more right to say this than the u.s have to continue to fund this unjust oppression against a people, cutting off their trade routes, subjecting the people, vetoing u.n. conventions.
you guys know all this right you just choose to ignore it.
Anne Lieberman -
9/27/2007
Caroline Glick at the Jerusalem Post:
"... what was said [Monday] at Columbia is of no consequence whatsoever. What matters is that by inviting Ahmadinejad to its campus, Columbia University announced that supporting or opposing the genocide of the Jews is a legitimate topic for discussion. In so doing, as an institution Columbia has taken itself beyond the pale of legitimate discourse. As an institution, Columbia has embraced depravity by renouncing the intrinsic sanctity of human life.
....As an alumna of Columbia College, class of 1991, it is with great distress that I say it is time to disassociate with the school. This does not simply mean cutting off donations. It means understanding that the problem with Ahmadinejad had nothing to do with legitimate policy debates. It means recognizing and openly stating that by placing genocide on the debating table, Columbia ceased to be an institution that can be said to represent our values. It means stating publicly that we will not send our children to the school. It means stating openly that Columbia has abandoned the moral underpinning of civilization and has descended into the depths of evil. It means stating openly that Columbia is a depraved institution."
PJ -
9/27/2007
The situation in Iran is horrible and we should not be supporting the decisions and behavior of Ahmadinejad and the Iranian government.
But, the hysteria revolving around his visit is childish. How do you change someone's opinion or position? Refusing to speak with a person you profoundly disagree with and calling them names is for recess. Confronting Ahmadinejad courteously and directly might not change him, but at least he would be forced to defend and explain himself in public. We'd all benefit from that. Sound democratic? free speech? Listening to those we disagree with?
Also, Ahmadinejad is a figure head, a puppet. The Clerics are in control. He's the idiot they put out front to take the heat as a distraction for their policies. And asking him to debate and speak at a University is a great opportunity to address that.
I wish we'd focus this kind of attention and scrutiny on the U.S. corporations that are using front companies to continue to do business with Iran. Hitler keeps coming up in this discussion. Remember U.S. companies continued to trade with Germany during WWII (Prescott Bush and I.G. Farben anyone?). There's the real rub. But if we act like children and refuse to debate and confront the scum of the earth we'd never get the chance to deal with these issues... and our own culpability in creating this Iranian mess in the first place.
Be nice if we could all grow up and deal with the real life issues beneath all the hooey and manufactured outrage. Ahmadinejad's a putz and I'd like to see that putz questioned and exposed, democratically.
V. Jobson -
9/26/2007
It's my understanding that Ahmadinejad is not in fact very powerful in Iran; he's more of a mouthpiece.
He is certainly not the dictator of the country, so it is not his regime. Here's an article discussing just how complex things are in Iran:
"...The clerical elite keep a firm grip on the country's power structure. But even there, Takeyh points out, a broad spectrum of opinion prevails. A substantial number prefer accommodation to confrontation with Iran's neighbours and foes: "Shia Islam is not like a Catholic hierarchy. It's a diverse collection of ayatollahs existing within a unitary organization."..."
"...Khamenei is more powerful than Ahmadinejad, a former Tehran mayor and member of the new group of young hardline conservatives. His powers are checked by the clerics, and he was one of a few candidates approved by the Guardian Council to run in the 2005 elections.
Ahmadinejad may appoint cabinet members, but they must be approved by the notoriously scrappy parliament. The decisions of cabinet ministers, in turn, are overseen by Khamenei..."
Rick -
9/26/2007
Ahmadinejad is NO fool! He accomplished exactly what he wanted! He gained stature in the Muslim world by our allowing him to speak at a major university in the US. Without a platform like that he is basically just another 'nut case'. The episode will play without the jeers in Muslim countries (which, unfortunately, now includes several formerly European countries) but WILL include the applause. All making him look to his constituency, like a powerful figure. While we may not believe in his twisted religion, it doesn't matter. He DOES believe and will act according to his beliefs!
V. Jobson -
9/26/2007
If they invited Bush to speak at the University of Tehran, he would not have the guts to accept. When has he ever addressed a crowd that hasn't been carefully screened to prevent any possible dissent? Even the sycophantic media hardly ever asks him a hard question.
Weird. Why invite someone simply to insult him? This is shooting fish in a barrel. It unnecessarily opened the door for Ahmadinejad to reproach Bollinger for rudeness & for the letter from Iranian academics replying to Bollinger point by point.
Do you or don't you want to hear the man? If you do, hear the man out. If you don't, why ask him? To give him an unnecessary opportunity to pose as a martyr & get support back home?
Professor Herbert Shapiro -
9/26/2007
I believe it was appropriate to have Iran's president, a participant in the UN General Assembly session, address a Columbia audience. Superseding this issue,however,is the matter of the rude,insulting introduction given by Lee Bollinger.In this instance civility might have opened the way for some serious discussion. As it was, Pres. Bollinger's remarks only intensified hostility between Iran and the United States. Columbia could have made some contribution to easing tensions. Regrettably it chose not to do so.
Robert Lee Gaston -
9/26/2007
So, is the issue that the university president spoke badly about Mr. Ahmadinejad? Actually, Iran’s little front man received better treatment by the Columbia audience than they have given some American conservatives.
Actually, that Columbia gave him the forum was a coupe for him, and the theocracy he represents. A great American university has made a gross error in judgment. I think Mr. Bollinger’s remarks were simply a matter of damage control.
The fact that other universities gave voice to Nazis in the 1930’s is of little import. It only goes to illustrate that the Columbia administration finds learning from history difficult.
Charles Lee Geshekter -
9/26/2007
Always nice to see a double standards aficionado like Bollinger get blasted from both sides.
His being criticized by political correctness hardliners like Eric Foner is like being called ugly by a toad.
It's a pity the focus shifted away from the demented howlers that are Ahmadinejad's stock-in-trade and over to the vague, totalitarian concepts of "tone" and "attitude" so characteristic of thin-skinned academics.
As a student of the Islamic world, it pained me to watch Ahmadinejad perpetuate many negative stereotypes about Muslims.
Lorraine Rollo -
9/26/2007
Yes. This is a case that falls under the AAUP guidelines for Academic Freedom and Outside Speakers. J.S. Mill gave a convincing argument for free speech; Voltaire and Kant also appreciated the importance of allowing views to be heard in order that truth emerge from debate. The university setting plays an important role in defending freedom of speech and informed discussion.
John Beatty -
9/26/2007
Columbia certainly had the right to ask Iran's president to speak.
Columbia's president absolutely had the right to slam him.
The audience had the right to jeer him.
He had the right to say what he thought.
Now, ask yourself, would any of this happened if the situation were reversed? Would say University of Teheran have invited George Bush to speek at a symposium on peace in Latin America? Would the response be the same?
Which is why, despite the response, it is VITAL that all this happen the way it did, because no other society would allow it.
Frank X. Kleshinski -
9/26/2007
He absolutely should have been asked to speak!
The idea that we can truly confront nations we disagree with by the simple use of force is inane. Have we learned nothing from the last seven years of the current administration?
The only way this country can effectively deal with Iran, Syria, Korea etc., is to learn as much as possible about them, and begin open and honest dialogue regarding the substantive issues at hand.
War is a gross and immoral absurdity which should be banned worldwide.
As an American, I believe in the United States Constitution and the Right to Free Speech. We should be willing to listen to anyone, and give them the same courtesies we would expect for ourselves. We may disagree entirely, but everyone has a right to be heard. As I understand it, the latter is one of the outstanding virtues of living in America.
I found the introductory comments of Columbia's President to be self-serving, rude and discourteous at best. The latter certainly did not indicate the mark of a truly educated person, who is at bare minimum, open to learning something regardless of the source.
Jason Blake Keuter -
9/26/2007
Presumably, people would be invited to speak if they could provide some kind of enlightenment. The views of hitler junior are already well known and thus his presence there has absolutely no intellectual justification. The fact that he was invited under the pretense of promoting liberal values (openness? dialogue? the right of those who have unpleasant views to air them?) speaks volumes about the degree to which people misunderstand free speech. People have a right to speak all they want; but no one has an obligation to provide them with a platform. When you choose to provide someone with a platform, you are saying the views of that person can play a legitimate role in a democratic discussion: the views of Nazis don't pass that test. Shame on Columbia.
V. Jobson -
9/26/2007
1. It's true that he made a good reply when he started his speech (I just heard the beginning) so he may have expected something like that. There's an interesting letter posted in comments on juan cole's blog, with a letter from Iranian academics about the introduction: http://www.juancole.com/2007/09/ahmadinejad-lectures-at-columbia.html#comments
2. I'm glad you reminded me about Michael Moore at the Academy Awards; many people trash him, but he's a better democrat than the trashers (small d intentional). Also Stephen Colbert's performance in front of Bush a while ago; that took some guts. Maybe they should be installed as advisors to the president.
Trumpeter -
9/25/2007
1. Aching-whathisname had it coming. As an underhanded con artist, he surely wasn't fooled into expecting the red carpet at Columbia.
2. Michael Moore did refer specifically and publicly to a "fictitious president," and on national TV, until the Academy Awards filth-protectors pulled the plug on him.
Alexis -
9/25/2007
Well, this seems rather like the question "Should newspapers print images that they know will incite violence?" (ie cartoons of religious figures).
On the one hand, they are perfectly within their rights to do so and they are certainly welcome to. By extension, it is not generally recognized as being with a person's rights to respond in a violent or oppressive way towards others such that the previous right to free speech is denied.
That said, it does show an extreme lack of sense. Just because you can do something does not mean that it is worthwhile, meaningful, useful, helpful, or wise to do so. To what end, in other words? To what purpose?
So, ultimately, Columbia was tacky and tasteless to invite Ahmadinejad, but they were not morally wrong to do so.
I would like to add that those who compare giving a forum for this speaker to previous university administrators tearing down posters that opposed Nazi Germany miss a vital difference - one action gave the ability to a free exchange of speech, the other denied it. And that is a huge difference.
Bill McWilliams -
9/25/2007
Columbia's president obviously is concerned about his own job security and
making sure that donor-funding continues unabated.
Gotta dance to the Lobby's tune if you want to avoid being ejected from the "party".
V. Jobson -
9/25/2007
Having heard some of the introduction; I have a couple of questions.
Isn't it kind of rude to invite someone to speak, then to trash him before he's even had the chance to speak?
Are there any Americans who have the guts to speak so bluntly to their own President who is working to destroy American's democratic freedoms, and who has killed more innocent Iraqis than Saddam Hussein did? Does any American have the courage to call George W. Bush a liar to his face?
Bill McWilliams -
9/25/2007
The decision to invite Mr. Ahmadinejad to speak was almost certainly a propaganda ploy cooked-up by an intelligence arm of the Bush administration and "The Lobby".
There's oil, and gas TOO, over there in Eye Ran, doncha know.
Ed -
9/25/2007
Dr. Bollinger's comments were insulting, arrogant, gauche, rebarbative, insolent, and offensive.
Way to go, Dr. B! Give us more!
And copy in Mr. Ahneedadayjob.
Ed -
9/25/2007
Dr. Bollinger's comments were insulting, arrogant, gauche, rebarbative, insolent, and offensive.
Way to go, Dr. B! Give us more!
And copy in Mr. Ahneedadayjob.
Murphy -
9/25/2007
Although I don't deny that Ahmadinejad's painfully obvious arrogance poses one of the biggest threats to the world today, I do disagree with your view that it was wrong for him to visit Columbia. Our goal in this brewing conflict should be to curb the dangerously eccentric actions and opinions of this leader, and I think it shows tremendous class on the part of Columbia University to welcome him into the open academic discourse and debate that we cherish so greatly in this country. The question we should be asking ourselves is, What is the next step in this consistently worsening problem? Ahmadinejad must have felt both the scornful contempt from the American public as well as simultaneously feeling flattered he was actually allowed into the country. Additionally, from a foreign perspective, the United States appears more open than usual concerning international relations (which George Bush has single-handedly tossed in the dumpster). Ahmadinejad's arrival was not an endorsement of his regime or his ideas by either Columbia University or the American population.
john -
9/25/2007
Ahmadinejad should have known better, we were not inviting him to treat him as a guest but to insult him. That is why Bollinger says "When you come to a place like this, this makes you, quite simply, ridiculous.", and he is obviously right about that, Ahmedinejad is so stupid to have attended this meeting thinking he can fool us into believing he is not what he is.
