This is why he was here ...
All those folks who were up in arms about Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia University? Those who wanted some form of censorship?
They apparently forgot that free speech goes both ways ... case in point, Columbia University President Lee Bollinger's vicious and intellectual smackdown ... to Ahmadinejad's face.
It takes courage to stand up for unpopular speech. It also takes courage to challenge that speech face-to-face in a manner that so few were willing to do.
They apparently forgot that free speech goes both ways ... case in point, Columbia University President Lee Bollinger's vicious and intellectual smackdown ... to Ahmadinejad's face.
It takes courage to stand up for unpopular speech. It also takes courage to challenge that speech face-to-face in a manner that so few were willing to do.
posted by Jmac at 5:46 PM
11 Comments:
So much for the pansy liberal egghead meme
Watch it again and read the Fox chryon and especially the scroll. Truly fascinating.
The thing I like about Columbia is the way it welcomes the ROTC.
Ah yes. I saw that particular saw circulating the right wing blogosphere today. Even though one has little to do with the other. Where did you read it? Or did you hear it? I have to admit I missed Hannipie today.
The problem wasn't so much as the fact they let him speak, but that they had previously canceled a speech by the founder of the Minutemen because of his politics. (I also don't see the aptness of the ROTC comparison, though.)
Notice how Columbia covered up their own name on the lectern, though? They were ashamed of something.
If it was politics, then I could see a legitimate concern.
However, comparing the leader of a nation, particularly a nation that figures to be one that figures prominently in our future foreign policy efforts, to the leader of a group of vigilantes is apples and oranges. It makes me think that denying a member of the Minutemen to speak is more of a statement about the validity of their views rather than a disagreement with their politics.
"It makes me think that denying a member of the Minutemen to speak is more of a statement about the validity of their views rather than a disagreement with their politics."
I can't be the only one thinking this, but....huh? What does that sentence mean? So if you don't think someone's views are 'valid' then you can deny them your lectern and feel no cognitive dissonance, but if they hold to "policial" opinions (as opposed to "views") that you disagree with, then 'free speech' means you let them speak.
I personally love that the guy spoke and that the community there at Columbia got to give him you-know-what. Conservatives shouldn't have been complaining in the first place. But, given that they were, the defense offered by Columbia was lame. "Free speech!" Uh, okay, but you don't let every single person come speak at a huge gathering of your university. There is only so much time, so many such offers that can be made. You have to pick some and not others. You in fact have rejected others already (like the minutemen). Don't be ashamed; it's unavoidable. Just own it, for crying out loud. But instead you say "free speech" as though that explains why you let this particular person come and speak.
"Why do you walk in circles, sir?"
"Because I can walk!"
"Errr....."
Perhaps I didn't make it as clear as I could have, but my position makes perfect sense.
Yes, Columbia used discretion in determining who could and couldn't speak, but it was based on relevance, not politics.
Bringing in the leader of another country is wholly different than bringing in a representative of a group that espouses fringe views and questionable behavior with regard to immigration. This isn't to say Columbia wouldn't let someone speak at the lectern who didn't hold anti-immigration views, but just not someone from an organization that engages in rather questionable behavior.
If this hadn't been the president of Iran, there's no way Columbia lets him speak. But he held a position of considerable influence and power, so they let him come. The Minuteman can't say that, and that's why they didn't speak.
Okay, that makes sense. So you're off the hook. :-) But I still contend that Columbia's self-defense was lame. They did not justify the invitation on the grounds you just did--relevance/political influence. they justified by crying "free speech", which is hypocritical since they certainly DON'T invite everyone to speak who might like to be invited.
Xon, in what sense is it hypocritical? They control the speech that occurs in their forums in a sense similar to how you control who enters into your home. Autonomous sovereignty is not the same thing as distributive sovereignty, is it?
Because that was not the argument they made in their defense. They didn't say "We get to control who gets to speak in our living room". They said "Everyone has a right to free speech, and that is why Mr. X is coming to speak." I am objecting to their lame argument in particular, not to the better argument they might have given.
Post a Comment
<< Home