What Matt said

I can't improve it:

I'm a little confused by the framing of the decision to extend an invitation for Mahmoud Ahmadenijad to speak at Columbia University as "free speech." Everyone, including Ahmadenijad, has a right to speak his mind in this country, but nobody has a right to a specific platform at a major university. I, after all, haven't been granted such an invitation and there's no particular reason he should have gotten one either. For all the reasons Ross cites a lot of the right's reaction to this has been overheated, but it's still fundamentally odd to decide that a maniac should participate in a debate with a university president as part of a bizarre publicity stunt whose main purpose is to exaggerate the importance of both men.

Conversely, though, things like Duncan Hunter's new plan to cut off funding to Columbia University is a real free speech issue. The university really has the right to stage an asinine publicity stunt if it wants to without the federal government stepping in.

Comments

What I just can't get my head around is this concept that inviting him to speak somehow emboldens or legitimizes what he says, even though Columbia, Bollinger and all involved have said over and over that there is no endorsement intended. MY, Douthat et al seem to think this is just a a self-evident principal, that giving someone a forum to speak legitimizes what they say. But I don't believe that's true, and I'm still waiting for anyone to provide a logical argument for why they think that's the case.

I also think it's funny that people who normally would do anything they can to demonstrate the irrelevance of our elite universities are now saying "And at Columbia University!"

Posted by Freddie | September 25, 2007 8:44 AM

At least the President is sensible about it.

I do find it a bit odd that Matt would call out the stupid proposal of the irrelevant Duncan Hunter, but not mention the perhaps more worrying statement of New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver that the New York legislature will consider cutting funding:
http://www.nysun.com/article/63232

Perhaps he hasn't seen it yet. It's not just "a lot of the right" with a crazy reaction; Speaker Silver is anything but of the right.

Posted by John Thacker | September 25, 2007 9:03 AM

Well, consider that federal funds should have been pulled when the ROTC was prevented from coming to Columbia decades ago. The ROTC is not okay, but Ahmadinejad is?

I can't wait till Columbia invites the former leader of the KKK. /sarc

Seriously though, how is this a free speech issue? It's only about federal funds. Federal funds are essentially a form of agreement between the university and the government, almost like a business transaction. As such, it could be cancelled at any time.

If it were another situation, sure, it might be worrisome, but this is the president of a country who has not only been advocating and supporting terrorism, but has been sending them to Iraq to kill Iraqis and our soldiers.

Posted by Redley | September 25, 2007 9:16 AM

On ROTC: I seriously doubt that Columbia would have allowed Ahmadinejad to recruit for the Iranian Army.

I completely disagree with Matt. In a narrow sense, no, it's not about "free speech"; but there is a demand side to free speech as well as a supply side, and it is a part of university's mission to promote diverse and stimulating discussion on issues, not just to open its doors and see who shows up. And, quite predictably, the Ahmadinejad day on campus seems, from the reporting, to have been a huge success. The university was caught up in an inspired flurry of intelligent political debate, sidewalk debates, a spirit of democratic excitement. And I find it hard to believe anybody has volunteered for Hezbollah as a result.

In any case, Ahmadinejad is not a "maniac". He's a politician -- one who campaigns for votes (unlike most of our Mideast allies' leaders). I'm sure Matt and Megan have occasionally noted that politicians say different things in different forums. Forcing politicians to appear before audiences that are largely hostile to their messages is one of the very best ways to moderate their behavior. Ahmadinejad is not Pinochet or Milosevic, a mass murderer who's escaped indictment; and Columbia wasn't giving him an award. He's the president of a country which has a poor relationship with the US; he's said he doesn't believe in the Holocaust (or something, he says different things on different days) and he's made aggressive statements about Israel. Big whoop. The US may be about to go to war with this guy's country. I think what really bothers conservatives is the possibility that Americans might get the impression Ahmadinejad is an actual human being, who runs a country populated by human beings; and that might make it that much harder to kill them.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 25, 2007 10:13 AM

You could improve it by removing that last paragraph. What does Hunter's bill have to do with free speech? Columbia is free to say whatever they want, but they're not entitled to a dime of public money, and probably produce almost nothing of any value for what public money they do receive anyway.

"I think what really bothers conservatives is the possibility that Americans might get the impression Ahmadinejad is an actual human being, who runs a country populated by human beings; and that might make it that much harder to kill them"

Your optimism is encouraging, but if you could prove more than one percent of this country's population paid any attention to the content of this speech, I'd be amazed. And even if you could, I'd be doubly amazed if it had the effect of creating sympathy for the Iranian government.

Posted by J | September 25, 2007 10:51 AM

Just getting into a debate with Ahmadinejad implies that he has a position worth debating. He's a nutjob. Yes, he sort of has to get votes, but if the theocrats support him, he'll get the votes. Castro has to get votes, too.

Which position is Columbia saying is worth debating? Whether or not the Holocaust happened? Whether or not the Caliphate should be reestablished and the Western countries forced to submit to Islam? Whether or not Israel and the Jews should be exterminated?

Iran is actively killing American (and allied) soldiers in Iraq, both by supplying and training the terrorists who are there and by sending men to actually fight. Iran is working furiously to develop nuclear weapons which they will likely try to share with others. Iran is working actively to form a coalition of nations against the US (consisting of North Korea, Venezuela, and anyone else they can find who is anti-American).

Who really thinks one can have a reasoned debate with this guy? I haven't read the transcript, but apparently the debate didn't happen, he lied and dodged questions. Whoop de doo. Were students at Columbia ignorant of how bad this guy is? That's pretty sad...

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | September 25, 2007 12:10 PM

It's the context and the hypocrisy.

Columbia, where last year the Minuteman Project was booed offstage, where this year they weren't even allowed to speak, where PC speech codes are rampant, only seems to discover the importance of free speech when America's enemies are involved.

I don't know why I should be helping to pay for that.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | September 25, 2007 12:42 PM

brooksfoe,
If you doubt they would invite him to recruit, then you might have trouble looking past your nose.

Him coming there to speak and stir up the hornest nest in the middle of intellectual America and stick is finger in the eye of the great satan WAS his recruiting poster. He's not trying to recruit Americans. He's trying to recruit Iranians back home. Show them how he can go into the Lion's den, speak with the power of Allah and all that and teach us infidels a lesson. And people like you invited him to do so.

He used you has a nice propaganda tool back home. If there is a bully in the school yard, you don't invited them up on stage to show off. You isolate them and make them feel unimportant and unnecessary.

You just did the opposite with this tyrant, which only feeds his ego of self importance, and vindication in telling the whole world just how wrong we are.

Tell me what is so wrong from simply telling him, "You're not welcome here"? Right now it seems like all that's wrong with it is a bunch of republicans (mainly) got upset about it, so a bunch of democrats are just doing the opposite because heaven forbid we actually be united in confronting a dictator that hates America.

Posted by sam | September 25, 2007 1:07 PM

sam, Ahmadinejad, like George Bush, is a politician who thrives on narrowminded nationalist chauvinism. It's a really good idea to force such politicians to confront audiences who don't share their backgrounds and who are hostile to their messages, because it makes them recalibrate their discourse and jolts them out of their bubbles. Bush could really benefit from being forced to speak to an Iranian audience. I find George Bush a revolting and objectionable person -- he has, in fact, launched an unprovoked war, which Ahmadinejad has not; but I think it would be a great idea for an Iranian university to invite Bush to speak.

It's also very healthy for an American audience to actually see someone like Ahmadinejad speak, and to respond to him. The whole attitude of "you're not welcome here" is antithetical to the principles of freedom and democracy. I can see that you honestly don't understand the point of doing this, but that's your failure of comprehension. The US's problem in the Mideast right now isn't that we aren't sufficiently demonizing regional leaders; it's that we're demonizing them too much, we aren't talking to them and we don't understand either them or their countries. In fact, I think you would have personally benefited from going to that speech, because you clearly have a lot of unexamined, ill-informed ideas about Iran.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 25, 2007 4:44 PM

Disagree with your last comment, Brooksfoe, but its your opinion, and that's fine. I was wondering about your experience / reading you've done with Iran, because the point you made to Sam of not knowing enough about Iran to make healthy decisions, is extremely valid.

I've got to say, Ahmad is fairly adept at some of the propaganda techniques. There are periods when his comments are pretty lucid, but there are other times when that blinding light of fanatacism peeks out during a speech, and its pure hatred can sterilize an audience. Still, since there was a significant number of appreciative applauses to his speech, his appearance could have been quite productive for him.

The Columbia President had some tough questions to 'ask' Ahmad, but it seemed more of a 'look at me' moment, than a real challenge to the guy to answer the questions (which, of course, he pretty much ignored).

Posted by falkoyn | September 25, 2007 6:28 PM

Wow, brooksfoe, your last comment reads like satire to me. You are serious?

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | September 25, 2007 7:09 PM

Yeah, there are no rights to be invited to speak, [um...duh?] but where I was reminded of free speech was in the good ol' "marketplace of ideas" reason for why it's a good thing for society. I know that Ahmadinejad isn't hurting for a mike to broadcast his utterings, but the forum of a debate is a different hill of beans. It all becomes immediately interesting once you know there's going to be some argument, and that's where you WANT the holocaust-deniers to step up and into the limelight, in front of a not-all-friendly crowd. Exposing them that way is the only way to fight them, in fact.

I wish those boring candidate debates were actual debates and not soundbite Q&As, to change the subject.

Posted by Phoebe | September 25, 2007 8:01 PM

I'm with Phoebe. Also, it's perfectly obvious that what's actually happening here is that conservatives are attempting to use "Columbia invited Ahmadinejad to speak" as a way to promote the meme "Columbia (i.e. the Liberal NY Establishment) is allied with America's enemies".

There are two reasons why this is stupid. First, Iran is not an implacable foe of the United States. It's a big, complicated country that does some stuff we don't like, but with which we could cooperate on a lot of other issues if our leaders weren't so busy finding new enemies. Our countries are not at war, though it clearly serves Republican political interests to keep agitating as though we ought to be.

Second, conservatives need to get it through their heads that inviting someone to speak is not the same as supporting their position. Superfriends vs. Archenemies is not an adult view of the world.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 26, 2007 3:35 AM

First, Iran is not an implacable foe of the United States.

I almost laughed out loud when I read this. Iran is currently engaged in attacking and killing American soldiers in Iraq. They want us to fail and leave so they can take over. Iran is currently engaged with North Korea and Venezuela to form an alliance against the US. I'm not sure what your definition of "enemy" is, but the above look pretty much like the actions of an enemy to me.

Iran, like all countries, is made up of millions of people, not all of whom have the same goals. However, the leadership of Iran seems pretty solidly anti-US and Israel and pro-taking over the Middle East.

As a conservative (not a Republican), my problem with the invitation to Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia is that his views have already been widely spread and he's never shown any intellectual honesty or willingness to engage in honest debate. Should we honestly be debating with holocaust deniers? I don't think that their speech should be suppressed but that's not the same as giving them a forum to speak. Columbia has shown a long history of denying speech to those it disagrees with. But they are willing to give a forum to Ahmadinejad? How about Castro? The KKK?

This is going to be a propaganda coup for Ahmadinejad. It won't win him any additional friends in the US but it will gain him some prestige in the Middle East and other enemies of the US.

Liberals need to get it through their heads that not everyone is honest or interested in debate and that some people really do want to kill you for ideological reasons. Sesame Street is how the world should be, not how it is.

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | September 26, 2007 10:09 AM

EI - I've asked this before, and you failed to produce any evidence of your assertion that Iran is killing US soldiers. In fact, the best you could do was send a wiki article about the Iranian hostage crisis. Well buddy, I think if you're going to aggitate for war with Iran, you ought to be able to produce something better than that.

Post 9/11 Iran made overtures to the US and helped us against the Taliban. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-06-09-iran-taliban_x.htm

Saddam was a sworn enemy of Iran, lest we forget the brutal war between the two countries.

There was, for a time, a serious possibility that Bush could have had a "Nixon goes to China" moment with Iran which would have led to a more constructive relationship with the country. But jackass neocons with their delusions of unlimited US power prevented any such strategic moves from occurring. Whew - that was a close one! Can you imagine how much damage would have been caused by a constructive relationship with Iraq's largest neighbor? Not to mention a Shite country that really hates Al Qaeda?

I am left with the unfortunate conclusion that people like EI are enemies of America who, like Iago does to Othello, whisper disasterous advice in our ears pretending to have our best interests at heart. But the simple fact is that their advice has, without fail, led to enormous loss of life, prestige and resources. It has led to a weaker and more vulnerable America.

My question for all of your advocating war with Iran is this: Why do you hate America?

Posted by szr | September 26, 2007 11:26 AM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16795765/site/newsweek/page/0/
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007289.php
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/apiraniniraq070211/
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L17792324.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297777,00.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL0230338320070702

I could find more, but I'm sure you can use Google as well as I can.

I'm not agitating for war with Iran. Iran is at war with us, though. If you think Iran would deal with us honestly, then you're the one who is deluded. Iran is doing everything it can to oppose us all over the world. We might be able to appease them if we sacrificed Israel, but I suspect that would just encourage them.

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | September 26, 2007 11:43 AM