I'll just say that it's completely wild that the president of Iran has to deal with the US flurry of journalists bandying corrupted sources; this in order to find his lone diplomatic engagement. It is also a dangerous sign, I think. He is intelligent and one could imagine we, in the US, have people as gifted and capable that could get our nations working in the right direction with the diplomacy we need. Many military people also downgrade the threat, mainly because there is no delivery capability on the part of Iran. As Ahmadinejad put most clearly with CBS, these things do not serve a purpose at this point, for anybody. The source on Iran's activity in Iraq smells like the same stovepipe used in 2002-3, and is unreliable. But why would it be acceptable to any right thinking person to refuse talking with your "enemies" when you need their help in their own backyard?
First, I would like to say that I very much appreciated the opportunity to watch the interview myself rather than read about it or transcripts of the same. Second, I wonder whether Columbia would issue such a lengthy and laborious disclaimer prior to a guest's speech had it been any other controversial political leader. As the Iranian president himself notes in his opening, I believe it is a sign of courtesy to allow an invited guest to speak without first firing a battery of aggressive criticisms of the person. Rather, it should be the audience who makes up their own minds regarding any claims presented. More importantly, however, I felt that contrary to what perhaps many wanted to see, Ahmadinejad's speech was not outrageous, radical, or particularly threatening. I felt that on the whole he made what to him were rational arguments, though to us may seem disagreeable or altogether incompatible with our societal values. I do not believe that the expression of these contradictory thoughts is threatening, but enlightening and something to be fostered in a culture that so dearly covets freedom of speech. Overall, I think the controversy over the speech was blown out of proportion, and served to mock the media that fueled it all.
Initially, the overwhelming feeling I had while watching the debate was something that I had not seen commented on much in the press reaction to the affair: namely, the sheer ugly, deception involved in baiting a foreign leader with an academic invitation only to harass him on arrival. I have seen it discussed in terms of whether it was wise or not, but not really insofar as how academically dishonest and dishonorable it was. Perhaps the point of emphasis I want to make then is a moral one. Bollinger was simply dishonest. Any distant concerns as to an impending crisis with Iran were drowned out for me by the obvious crisis in academia which will be of far more pressing concern to me as a student if in fact he represents the direction that University institutions are going to take in the public sphere.
More than that, the accusation that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not answer the questions directly was for me an example of a terrifying new intellectual tyranny when conducting a dialogue: either you answer the way we want you to, or we say you did not answer at all. To be sure, there may be instances where this is true--one need only look at some of our own Democrat or Republican debates, but it seems that Ahmadinejad clearly answered questions about "Israel" in the way that he views those issues: as an issue for Palestine. To reject that, asks for him to concede to our world view first, Bollinger might consider what an anti-intellectual pose that is for an academic.
The issue as to what this speech means for academia is no small point. Increasingly, when making my way through the reading assignments, I am struck by the wealth of intelligent, rational and layered responses that one could have addressed about Iran, both in print and also those voiced by Ahmadinejad: for instance, the issues of culpability and Palestinians, or even the earlier discussion on this blog about the CIA involvement in Iranian elections in the last century, and yet in few places in Academia or the mainstream media has the response to those issues been anything but a deafening silence (our present class discussion excluded of course!)
The discussion about Iran in the press and the remarks made by Bollinger as the Dean of one of our major universities is promising to reveal more about us than it is Iran. If we cannot answer the issues that Ahmadinejad and others put on the table, even if or perhaps especially if we find those views absurd, then the willingness to have a dialogue or take the intellectual / moral high ground will be something others will question about us. A brief trip to Europe these days will quickly make you think that that questioning has already begun. If, as I suspect, Bollinger capitulated last minute to the pressure around him from only one group to attack Ahmedinejad, and in the process sacrificed intellectual protocol or honesty, what legitimacy would that kind of academy have for people like myself who have worked so hard to enter it?
This interview gives a rare chance to hear the complete other side to many arguments and punchlines we hear throughout our media. In particular, we hear his response to the following: 1)nuclear energy, 2) holocaust denial, 3) Israel, 4) freedom and women's rights. He proclaimed that Iran is actually fully co-operating with the IAEI and they have agreed to it. With regards to holocaust denial, he was saying that people should be allowed to ask questions on the matter. Also, he sees no reason why Palestinians should have to suffer for something that they were not part of. Finally, he said that freedom and women's rights are very strong in their country, and that they have over 80% voter turnout in their elections. It is very rare that we hear this side of the argument here in America, and as I was watching this I was thinking about how I have never talked to my parents about what Iran is really like. Hearing this opposite standpoint has motivated me to talk to them and see what they have to say about Iran, because at least I'll know there response to me won't be clouded by , well, bulls**t.
My background knowledge of the many topics surrounding Iran is very poor, but i'll do my best to provide accuracy and legitimacy in my opinion. Concerning Mitt Romney and President Ahmaddinejed, I found it very difficult to find complete trust between the two political figures. With Mitt Romney, I felt that the U.S. news comments only extended the ( currently failing ) endeavor of spreading democracy throughout the middle east that is currently being pursued by president Bush. Despite Romney's fabulous Rhetoric,I am unpursuaded his vision of a democratic middle east because of how drastically it differs culturally from the U.S. As for President Ahmadinejed, I am impressed with his courage to speak at Columbia University. Mainly, because I am sure he understood that his opinion at the forum would be undermined by the U.S. press bias; and we saw this with the several tongue-in-cheek comments directed toward him. It may appear that i am defending him,yet he did manage to lose my trust after he eluded several simple and direct questions from the audience. For example, the question about his intentions to wipe out Israel. The content until now has been of my personal analysis of the demeanor of both political figures. As for their past behavior and history of actions, I am of no use. Yet, I believe it is important that we take notice that both Romney and Ahmadinejed are highly educated ( as Rhetoricians ), and therefore we should be prepared for any their misleading ideas. In conclusion, I feel that we ought to hold their rhetoric in our back pockets while we observe their actions to follow.
I just finished watching the talk and am very satisfied with what Ahmadinejad had to say. I'm actually glad that it started off with such a hateful introduction, it gave Ahmadinejad a chance to expose the eagerness of the the president of columbia to disrepute him to the max. After Ahmadinejad explained himself, it just served to make us question the real reasons as to why he wants people to view Ahmadinejad as an evil and belligerent person.(My rxn: wow, he must really want to go to war w/Iran..:X) It was very obvious as to who was actually spreading the hate and propaganda. He stated he would like for Ahmadinejad to lose the next election at home as a consequence of the forum but that's incredibly naive, especially for a president of such a prestigious university. America has built quite a reputation abroad, especially in the Middle East, and being insulted by America would be received as a good thing in Iran. (probable Iranian rxn: the American gov't hates him so much, by Allah, he must be truly upright and the real deal, the Muslim "Hugo Chavez".. :l ) If the president of Columbia were concerned with uncovering the truth, he would have done some research instead of spewing forth unfounded claims and severe insults. Ahmadinejad presented himself as a very moral, caring and intellectual leader. He spoke sincerely and gave sufficient answers for all of the questions, except for the one about homosexuals- unfortunately. He lost some of his credibility w/that statement, but his huge grin suggested he was trying to be funny. It was a lose/lose situation for him. Saying something positive about homosexuals might cause some backlash at home and saying something negative would just paint him as a hateful person. But, what he said does hold some weight- in that one would probably not come across homosexual behavior in public (or even heterosexual displays of affection), all that happens behind closed doors in religious societies- as part of public decency. Therefore, there are no "open" gays in Iran. For the most part, Ahmadinejad made a great case of how he stood for responsible conduct and truth, providing his strong, religious morals as support for his statements. The president of Columbia stated that he expected the listeners to have revulsion for what Ahmadinejad stood for. Oh yeah, nothing more repulsive than truth, oh the horror!!!
Hei, I think the whole thing is crazy, especially the president of Columbia University. This is the very very first time I have ever heard a host welcome his guest by questioning (if not publicly insulting) the guest. I read something on that. It’s said that because of the controversial status of the Irani president and what he has been doing, even Harvard did not have the guts to invite him. There’s a lot of opposition within Columbia, but the university president wanted to demonstrate Columbia’s intellectual freedom, so Ahmadinejad was there. Then the school president was under so much pressure that he came out with such a speech to please the rightists. Again, that’s what I HEARD, but at the same time I am very curious about why the school president gave such a provocative speech with words like “you should…..” “your present here is ridiculous [because the Irani president suppresses free speech but he was at Columbia because of our country’s tradition of free speech]” ….. I was hoping that the invitation of Ahmadinejad and his visit would be friendly gestures demonstrating that “we can talk about it” but then now everything is completely messed up (the Irani president might have won American people to his side, but I am pretty sure no Irani would side with us given the humiliation their president recieved in our country). I couldn’t help thinking that they might have done so intentionally to pave the way for a future war……… given the “I hate all Irani” statement by Debra………
First off I have criticisms of the introduction provided by the president of Columbia University. While I will not deny that Ahmadinejad is a bad person and a criminal, the university invited him there to spreak. It seems more to me that the president did this in order to save face in front of all of the opposition to letting Ahmadinejad speak. I should hope that the students of Columbia are smart enough to form their opinions and so this sort of introduction was unnecessary.
Secondly, it is such a surprising thing to me that in this day and age, the leader of a country can rely so heavily on religion in the justification for his actions. I realize that the U.S. is quite different from many other countries in that we do not necessarily have a single religion that our people/leaders subscribe to so it is hard to compare. Nonetheless it seems so archaic to me. It's also interesting to me that he he preaches such a value in science yet he provides little evidence or logical explanations for his views and policies.
Based on the principle of Ahmadinejad's well elaborated plight to pursue and continue advancing scientific knowledge in all realms, I'd like to ask him, would it then be possible and permissible to conduct further investigation on the so called 'non-existant' gay community in Iran? Or would it have to be a closed off topic confined to absolutist restraints, as the same ones are imposed by America today regarding the Holocaust?
Furthermore, I find it interesting how America, a nation that still struggles with its civil liberty rights to condone gay marriage, is pointing fingers at another country struggling with advancing gay rights. Granted there are far worse consequences held in Iran for homosexuals than in the US, I don't doubt that. But I don't think America is in the right to say anything about another country regarding gay rights when its own current administration refuses to expand gay rights themselves. Now if it were Canada pointing the fingers, that would be another story.
I loved this whole thing. The president speaking about not censoring information and staying very open minded (under intense political pressure) felt very hypocritical and closed minded, especially with Ahmadinejad's introduction where he showed he could play the open-mindedness game and speak like an academic. I have to say I felt swayed by Ahmadinejad's speech to sympathize with his side. He came to speak in a furry of objections that he should not speak, that he is a terrorist, and does not belong in any academic debate. He then appeared open-minded, and even encouraging debate. I felt it was a brilliant move. Because so many people were so closed minded about Ahmadinejad's speech, he was able to gloss over Iranian atrocities by being able to point to US hypocricies. It was this speech that made me really respect Ahmadinejad as a skillful politician and that his role in the international stage will be significant.
Anytime we have a chance to hear both sides to the story, we should always take advantage of the opportunity. This enables us to become more educated on an unbiased level. This is a very controversial event and events such as this helps us better understand the conflicts that are occurring in the world and why such actions have been taken place. "The scope of free speech should always be open to an academic debate." Whether this was the right thing to do is controversial, but I think we can all agree that hearing from both sides helps us all better understand what the issues are.
Personally, there was no question that Columbia University should allow President Ahmadinejad to speak. This is America. We freely should receive information and facts that are unfiltered. It is our right to get the facts from the Iranian president himself and be able to personally judge what he has to say. Further, I think Columbia’s President Lee Bollinger opening statements were too harsh. He accused the president of being a “petty and cruel dictator.” Bollinger raised many questions and followed them stating that he doubted the president would have the “intellectual courage” to answer them. However, in hindsight, I believe Bollinger’s inappropriate introduction worked to President Ahmadinejad’s advantage. He reflected very bad on himself.
Personally, there was no question that Columbia University should allow President Ahmadinejad to speak. This is America. We freely should receive information and facts that are unfiltered. It is our right to get the facts from the Iranian president himself and be able to personally judge what he has to say. Further, I think Columbia’s President Lee Bollinger opening statements were too harsh. He accused the president of being a “petty and cruel dictator.” Bollinger raised many questions and followed them stating that he doubted the president would have the “intellectual courage” to answer them. However, in hindsight, I believe Bollinger’s inappropriate introduction worked to President Ahmadinejad’s advantage. He reflected very bad on himself.
Personally, there was no question that Columbia University should allow President Ahmadinejad to speak. This is America. We freely should receive information and facts that are unfiltered. It is our right to get the facts from the Iranian president himself and be able to personally judge what he has to say. Further, I think Columbia’s President Lee Bollinger opening statements were too harsh. He accused the president of being a “petty and cruel dictator.” Bollinger raised many questions and followed them stating that he doubted the president would have the “intellectual courage” to answer them. However, in hindsight, I believe Bollinger’s inappropriate introduction worked to President Ahmadinejad’s advantage. He reflected very bad on himself.
Personally, there was no question that Columbia University should allow President Ahmadinejad to speak. This is America. We freely should receive information and facts that are unfiltered. It is our right to get the facts from the Iranian president himself and be able to personally judge what he has to say. Further, I think Columbia’s President Lee Bollinger opening statements were too harsh. He accused the president of being a “petty and cruel dictator.” Bollinger raised many questions and followed them stating that he doubted the president would have the “intellectual courage” to answer them. However, in hindsight, I believe Bollinger’s inappropriate introduction worked to President Ahmadinejad’s advantage. He reflected very bad on himself.
Personally, there was no question that Columbia University should allow President Ahmadinejad to speak. This is America. We freely should receive information and facts that are unfiltered. It is our right to get the facts from the Iranian president himself and be able to personally judge what he has to say. Further, I think Columbia’s President Lee Bollinger opening statements were too harsh. He accused the president of being a “petty and cruel dictator.” Bollinger raised many questions and followed them stating that he doubted the president would have the “intellectual courage” to answer them. However, in hindsight, I believe Bollinger’s inappropriate introduction worked to President Ahmadinejad’s advantage. He reflected very bad on himself.
It was really interesting watching the actual interview as apposed to hearing about it in the news or reading the transcript. I felt that the opening statements by the professor were very rude and disrespectful, especially for a president of a country. It seemed like a very awkward way to start an interview by insulting the guest. I liked Ahnmadinejad's comment on the professors’ remarks, and I feel like the audience felt the same way. It was interesting listening to president Ahmadinejad speak and I felt that he presented himself in a positive way. He didn’t seem radical and he presented his arguments in a very rational and logical way. Overall it was a good interview, other than the insult in the beginning.
I think that the controversy over the speech was blown out of propertion. Listening to the introductory speech of the President of Columbia, I can't help but think that it is ridiculous how he invites Ahmadinejad and insults him in public. Whether was he says is true or not, he should respect the presence of his interloctor in a Democratic fashion. There is a place for criticism and a place for listening. The american media shapes our thoughts constantly, can't a university president leave some freedom to form our own opinion? The structure of the iranian govenrment is one that is complex. The president of Iran is limited in his power by the supreme leader. Hence, if the president of Colombia had a true understanding of Iranian politics he would not have called Ahmadineja "a cruel dictator"! It is really surprising how the president of columbia insults Ahmadinejad with so little knowledge about Iran.
I think that the controversy over the speech was blown out of propertion. Listening to the introductory speech of the President of Columbia, I can't help but think that it is ridiculous how he invites Ahmadinejad and insults him in public. Whether was he says is true or not, he should respect the presence of his interloctor in a Democratic fashion. There is a place for criticism and a place for listening. The american media shapes our thoughts constantly, can't a university president leave some freedom to form our own opinion? The structure of the iranian govenrment is one that is complex. The president of Iran is limited in his power by the supreme leader. Hence, if the president of Colombia had a true understanding of Iranian politics he would not have called Ahmadineja "a cruel dictator"! It is really surprising how the president of columbia insults Ahmadinejad with so little knowledge about Iran.
21 comments:
I'll just say that it's completely wild that the president of Iran has to deal with the US flurry of journalists bandying corrupted sources; this in order to find his lone diplomatic engagement. It is also a dangerous sign, I think. He is intelligent and one could imagine we, in the US, have people as gifted and capable that could get our nations working in the right direction with the diplomacy we need. Many military people also downgrade the threat, mainly because there is no delivery capability on the part of Iran. As Ahmadinejad put most clearly with CBS, these things do not serve a purpose at this point, for anybody. The source on Iran's activity in Iraq smells like the same stovepipe used in 2002-3, and is unreliable. But why would it be acceptable to any right thinking person to refuse talking with your "enemies" when you need their help in their own backyard?
First, I would like to say that I very much appreciated the opportunity to watch the interview myself rather than read about it or transcripts of the same. Second, I wonder whether Columbia would issue such a lengthy and laborious disclaimer prior to a guest's speech had it been any other controversial political leader. As the Iranian president himself notes in his opening, I believe it is a sign of courtesy to allow an invited guest to speak without first firing a battery of aggressive criticisms of the person. Rather, it should be the audience who makes up their own minds regarding any claims presented. More importantly, however, I felt that contrary to what perhaps many wanted to see, Ahmadinejad's speech was not outrageous, radical, or particularly threatening. I felt that on the whole he made what to him were rational arguments, though to us may seem disagreeable or altogether incompatible with our societal values. I do not believe that the expression of these contradictory thoughts is threatening, but enlightening and something to be fostered in a culture that so dearly covets freedom of speech. Overall, I think the controversy over the speech was blown out of proportion, and served to mock the media that fueled it all.
Initially, the overwhelming feeling I had while watching the debate was something that I had not seen commented on much in the press reaction to the affair: namely, the sheer ugly, deception involved in baiting a foreign leader with an academic invitation only to harass him on arrival. I have seen it discussed in terms of whether it was wise or not, but not really insofar as how academically dishonest and dishonorable it was. Perhaps the point of emphasis I want to make then is a moral one. Bollinger was simply dishonest. Any distant concerns as to an impending crisis with Iran were drowned out for me by the obvious crisis in academia which will be of far more pressing concern to me as a student if in fact he represents the direction that University institutions are going to take in the public sphere.
More than that, the accusation that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not answer the questions directly was for me an example of a terrifying new intellectual tyranny when conducting a dialogue: either you answer the way we want you to, or we say you did not answer at all. To be sure, there may be instances where this is true--one need only look at some of our own Democrat or Republican debates, but it seems that Ahmadinejad clearly answered questions about "Israel" in the way that he views those issues: as an issue for Palestine. To reject that, asks for him to concede to our world view first, Bollinger might consider what an anti-intellectual pose that is for an academic.
The issue as to what this speech means for academia is no small point. Increasingly, when making my way through the reading assignments, I am struck by the wealth of intelligent, rational and layered responses that one could have addressed about Iran, both in print and also those voiced by Ahmadinejad: for instance, the issues of culpability and Palestinians, or even the earlier discussion on this blog about the CIA involvement in Iranian elections in the last century, and yet in few places in Academia or the mainstream media has the response to those issues been anything but a deafening silence (our present class discussion excluded of course!)
The discussion about Iran in the press and the remarks made by Bollinger as the Dean of one of our major universities is promising to reveal more about us than it is Iran. If we cannot answer the issues that Ahmadinejad and others put on the table, even if or perhaps especially if we find those views absurd, then the willingness to have a dialogue or take the intellectual / moral high ground will be something others will question about us. A brief trip to Europe these days will quickly make you think that that questioning has already begun. If, as I suspect, Bollinger capitulated last minute to the pressure around him from only one group to attack Ahmedinejad, and in the process sacrificed intellectual protocol or honesty, what legitimacy would that kind of academy have for people like myself who have worked so hard to enter it?
This interview gives a rare chance to hear the complete other side to many arguments and punchlines we hear throughout our media. In particular, we hear his response to the following: 1)nuclear energy, 2) holocaust denial, 3) Israel, 4) freedom and women's rights. He proclaimed that Iran is actually fully co-operating with the IAEI and they have agreed to it. With regards to holocaust denial, he was saying that people should be allowed to ask questions on the matter. Also, he sees no reason why Palestinians should have to suffer for something that they were not part of. Finally, he said that freedom and women's rights are very strong in their country, and that they have over 80% voter turnout in their elections. It is very rare that we hear this side of the argument here in America, and as I was watching this I was thinking about how I have never talked to my parents about what Iran is really like. Hearing this opposite standpoint has motivated me to talk to them and see what they have to say about Iran, because at least I'll know there response to me won't be clouded by , well, bulls**t.
My background knowledge of the many topics surrounding Iran is very poor, but i'll do my best to provide accuracy and legitimacy in my opinion. Concerning Mitt Romney and President Ahmaddinejed, I found it very difficult to find complete trust between the two political figures. With Mitt Romney, I felt that the U.S. news comments only extended the ( currently failing ) endeavor of spreading democracy throughout the middle east that is currently being pursued by president Bush. Despite Romney's fabulous Rhetoric,I am unpursuaded his vision of a democratic middle east because of how drastically it differs culturally from the U.S. As for President Ahmadinejed, I am impressed with his courage to speak at Columbia University. Mainly, because I am sure he understood that his opinion at the forum would be undermined by the U.S. press bias; and we saw this with the several tongue-in-cheek comments directed toward him. It may appear that i am defending him,yet he did manage to lose my trust after he eluded several simple and direct questions from the audience. For example, the question about his intentions to wipe out Israel. The content until now has been of my personal analysis of the demeanor of both political figures. As for their past behavior and history of actions, I am of no use. Yet, I believe it is important that we take notice that both Romney and Ahmadinejed are highly educated ( as Rhetoricians ), and therefore we should be prepared for any their misleading ideas. In conclusion, I feel that we ought to hold their rhetoric in our back pockets while we observe their actions to follow.
I just finished watching the talk and am very satisfied with what Ahmadinejad had to say.
I'm actually glad that it started off with such a hateful introduction, it gave Ahmadinejad
a chance to expose the eagerness of the the president of columbia to disrepute him to the max. After Ahmadinejad explained himself, it just served to make us question the real reasons as to why he wants people to view Ahmadinejad as an evil and belligerent person.(My rxn: wow, he must really want to go to war w/Iran..:X) It was very obvious as to who was actually spreading the hate and propaganda. He stated he would like for Ahmadinejad to lose the next election at home as a consequence of the forum but that's incredibly naive, especially for a president of such a prestigious university. America has built quite a reputation abroad, especially in the Middle East, and being insulted by America would be received as a good thing in Iran. (probable Iranian rxn: the American gov't hates him so much, by Allah, he must be truly upright and the real deal, the Muslim "Hugo Chavez".. :l ) If the president of Columbia were concerned with uncovering the truth, he would have done some research instead of spewing forth unfounded claims and severe insults. Ahmadinejad presented himself as a very moral, caring and intellectual leader. He spoke sincerely and gave sufficient answers for all of the questions, except for the one about homosexuals- unfortunately. He lost some of his credibility w/that statement, but his huge grin suggested he was trying to be funny. It was a lose/lose situation for him. Saying something positive about homosexuals might cause some backlash at home and saying something negative would just paint him as a hateful person. But, what he said does hold some weight- in that one would probably not come across homosexual behavior in public (or even heterosexual displays of affection), all that happens behind closed doors in religious societies- as part of public decency. Therefore, there are no "open" gays in Iran. For the most part, Ahmadinejad made a great case of how he stood for responsible conduct and truth, providing his strong, religious morals as support for his statements. The president of Columbia stated that he expected the listeners to have revulsion for what Ahmadinejad stood for. Oh yeah, nothing more repulsive than truth, oh the horror!!!
Hei, I think the whole thing is crazy, especially the president of Columbia University. This is the very very first time I have ever heard a host welcome his guest by questioning (if not publicly insulting) the guest. I read something on that. It’s said that because of the controversial status of the Irani president and what he has been doing, even Harvard did not have the guts to invite him. There’s a lot of opposition within Columbia, but the university president wanted to demonstrate Columbia’s intellectual freedom, so Ahmadinejad was there. Then the school president was under so much pressure that he came out with such a speech to please the rightists. Again, that’s what I HEARD, but at the same time I am very curious about why the school president gave such a provocative speech with words like “you should…..” “your present here is ridiculous [because the Irani president suppresses free speech but he was at Columbia because of our country’s tradition of free speech]” ….. I was hoping that the invitation of Ahmadinejad and his visit would be friendly gestures demonstrating that “we can talk about it” but then now everything is completely messed up (the Irani president might have won American people to his side, but I am pretty sure no Irani would side with us given the humiliation their president recieved in our country). I couldn’t help thinking that they might have done so intentionally to pave the way for a future war……… given the “I hate all Irani” statement by Debra………
First off I have criticisms of the introduction provided by the president of Columbia University. While I will not deny that Ahmadinejad is a bad person and a criminal, the university invited him there to spreak. It seems more to me that the president did this in order to save face in front of all of the opposition to letting Ahmadinejad speak. I should hope that the students of Columbia are smart enough to form their opinions and so this sort of introduction was unnecessary.
Secondly, it is such a surprising thing to me that in this day and age, the leader of a country can rely so heavily on religion in the justification for his actions. I realize that the U.S. is quite different from many other countries in that we do not necessarily have a single religion that our people/leaders subscribe to so it is hard to compare. Nonetheless it seems so archaic to me. It's also interesting to me that he he preaches such a value in science yet he provides little evidence or logical explanations for his views and policies.
Based on the principle of Ahmadinejad's well elaborated plight to pursue and continue advancing scientific knowledge in all realms, I'd like to ask him, would it then be possible and permissible to conduct further investigation on the so called 'non-existant' gay community in Iran? Or would it have to be a closed off topic confined to absolutist restraints, as the same ones are imposed by America today regarding the Holocaust?
Furthermore, I find it interesting how America, a nation that still struggles with its civil liberty rights to condone gay marriage, is pointing fingers at another country struggling with advancing gay rights. Granted there are far worse consequences held in Iran for homosexuals than in the US, I don't doubt that. But I don't think America is in the right to say anything about another country regarding gay rights when its own current administration refuses to expand gay rights themselves. Now if it were Canada pointing the fingers, that would be another story.
I loved this whole thing. The president speaking about not censoring information and staying very open minded (under intense political pressure) felt very hypocritical and closed minded, especially with Ahmadinejad's introduction where he showed he could play the open-mindedness game and speak like an academic.
I have to say I felt swayed by Ahmadinejad's speech to sympathize with his side. He came to speak in a furry of objections that he should not speak, that he is a terrorist, and does not belong in any academic debate. He then appeared open-minded, and even encouraging debate. I felt it was a brilliant move. Because so many people were so closed minded about Ahmadinejad's speech, he was able to gloss over Iranian atrocities by being able to point to US hypocricies.
It was this speech that made me really respect Ahmadinejad as a skillful politician and that his role in the international stage will be significant.
Anytime we have a chance to hear both sides to the story, we should always take advantage of the opportunity. This enables us to become more educated on an unbiased level. This is a very controversial event and events such as this helps us better understand the conflicts that are occurring in the world and why such actions have been taken place. "The scope of free speech should always be open to an academic debate." Whether this was the right thing to do is controversial, but I think we can all agree that hearing from both sides helps us all better understand what the issues are.
Personally, there was no question that Columbia University should allow President Ahmadinejad to speak. This is America. We freely should receive information and facts that are unfiltered. It is our right to get the facts from the Iranian president himself and be able to personally judge what he has to say.
Further, I think Columbia’s President Lee Bollinger opening statements were too harsh. He accused the president of being a “petty and cruel dictator.” Bollinger raised many questions and followed them stating that he doubted the president would have the “intellectual courage” to answer them. However, in hindsight, I believe Bollinger’s inappropriate introduction worked to President Ahmadinejad’s advantage. He reflected very bad on himself.
Personally, there was no question that Columbia University should allow President Ahmadinejad to speak. This is America. We freely should receive information and facts that are unfiltered. It is our right to get the facts from the Iranian president himself and be able to personally judge what he has to say.
Further, I think Columbia’s President Lee Bollinger opening statements were too harsh. He accused the president of being a “petty and cruel dictator.” Bollinger raised many questions and followed them stating that he doubted the president would have the “intellectual courage” to answer them. However, in hindsight, I believe Bollinger’s inappropriate introduction worked to President Ahmadinejad’s advantage. He reflected very bad on himself.
Personally, there was no question that Columbia University should allow President Ahmadinejad to speak. This is America. We freely should receive information and facts that are unfiltered. It is our right to get the facts from the Iranian president himself and be able to personally judge what he has to say.
Further, I think Columbia’s President Lee Bollinger opening statements were too harsh. He accused the president of being a “petty and cruel dictator.” Bollinger raised many questions and followed them stating that he doubted the president would have the “intellectual courage” to answer them. However, in hindsight, I believe Bollinger’s inappropriate introduction worked to President Ahmadinejad’s advantage. He reflected very bad on himself.
Personally, there was no question that Columbia University should allow President Ahmadinejad to speak. This is America. We freely should receive information and facts that are unfiltered. It is our right to get the facts from the Iranian president himself and be able to personally judge what he has to say.
Further, I think Columbia’s President Lee Bollinger opening statements were too harsh. He accused the president of being a “petty and cruel dictator.” Bollinger raised many questions and followed them stating that he doubted the president would have the “intellectual courage” to answer them. However, in hindsight, I believe Bollinger’s inappropriate introduction worked to President Ahmadinejad’s advantage. He reflected very bad on himself.
Personally, there was no question that Columbia University should allow President Ahmadinejad to speak. This is America. We freely should receive information and facts that are unfiltered. It is our right to get the facts from the Iranian president himself and be able to personally judge what he has to say.
Further, I think Columbia’s President Lee Bollinger opening statements were too harsh. He accused the president of being a “petty and cruel dictator.” Bollinger raised many questions and followed them stating that he doubted the president would have the “intellectual courage” to answer them. However, in hindsight, I believe Bollinger’s inappropriate introduction worked to President Ahmadinejad’s advantage. He reflected very bad on himself.
It was really interesting watching the actual interview as apposed to hearing about it in the news or reading the transcript. I felt that the opening statements by the professor were very rude and disrespectful, especially for a president of a country. It seemed like a very awkward way to start an interview by insulting the guest. I liked Ahnmadinejad's comment on the professors’ remarks, and I feel like the audience felt the same way. It was interesting listening to president Ahmadinejad speak and I felt that he presented himself in a positive way. He didn’t seem radical and he presented his arguments in a very rational and logical way. Overall it was a good interview, other than the insult in the beginning.
I think that the controversy over the speech was blown out of propertion. Listening to the introductory speech of the President of Columbia, I can't help but think that it is ridiculous how he invites Ahmadinejad and insults him in public. Whether was he says is true or not, he should respect the presence of his interloctor in a Democratic fashion. There is a place for criticism and a place for listening. The american media shapes our thoughts constantly, can't a university president leave some freedom to form our own opinion?
The structure of the iranian govenrment is one that is complex. The president of Iran is limited in his power by the supreme leader. Hence, if the president of Colombia had a true understanding of Iranian politics he would not have called Ahmadineja "a cruel dictator"! It is really surprising how the president of columbia insults Ahmadinejad with so little knowledge about Iran.
I think that the controversy over the speech was blown out of propertion. Listening to the introductory speech of the President of Columbia, I can't help but think that it is ridiculous how he invites Ahmadinejad and insults him in public. Whether was he says is true or not, he should respect the presence of his interloctor in a Democratic fashion. There is a place for criticism and a place for listening. The american media shapes our thoughts constantly, can't a university president leave some freedom to form our own opinion?
The structure of the iranian govenrment is one that is complex. The president of Iran is limited in his power by the supreme leader. Hence, if the president of Colombia had a true understanding of Iranian politics he would not have called Ahmadineja "a cruel dictator"! It is really surprising how the president of columbia insults Ahmadinejad with so little knowledge about Iran.
Post a Comment