Lee Bollinger on the Spot
Posted on September 24th, 2007 in Uncategorized | 18 Comments »
I went to BAM yesterday to see Ian McKellen in King Learâwow!âand before the play one of my friends spotted Lee Bollinger sitting down (fourth row, center). That takes some chutzpah, I thought. Going to Lear the day before Iranian president Ahmadinejad’s controversial speech on your campus.
The Wall Street Journal blasts Bollinger today (surprise!) for inviting A-jad, as we will now call him, to Columbia, accusing Bollinger of hypocrisy for banning military recruiting at Columbia while inviting A-jad to speak.
Mr. Bollinger’s position might at least be coherent were he not now invoking the same principles to justify his invitation to Mr. Ahmadinejad, whose offenses to gay rights and any other form of human dignity considerably exceed the Pentagon’s. After promising that he would introduce the president “with a series of sharp challenges” — including Iran’s “reported support” for international terrorism — he went on to say that “it is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open the public forum to their expression.“
I have a couple of thoughts about all this. One is that Bollinger really is an eloquent advocate for the First Amendment, and especially these days, I’m glad of that; the country seems to need reminding. Two, given that the White House seems determined to go to war against Iran, this speech actually seems useful. Might as well know all we can before the bombs drop, right? Three, Bollinger’s got some gutsâand an ego to boot. One thinks he’s rather enjoying all this.
Finally, it’s interesting to ponder this brouhaha in the context of the idea of the university president and the bully pulpit. Lee Bollinger has, since becoming president of Columbia, probably made himself the most prominent university president in the country. That’s the role that Larry Summers was supposed to occupy, and one that Drew Faust so far shows no intention of competing for.
Would Harvard have been better off had it chosen Lee Bollinger instead of Larry Summers, as it almost did? I don’t know. But it is fascinating to watch Bollinger and wonder what might have been.
18 Responses
9/24/2007 9:15 am
you come to brooklyn?
9/24/2007 9:17 am
What, Bollinger is supposed to lie low the night before his big event and not go to the theatre? Not sure I see the chutzpah-except that it’s supposedly impossible to get tickets for this show, which brings one to wonder how you got them…
9/24/2007 9:20 am
Does this mean we can now call you R-Brad?
9/24/2007 9:22 am
In retrospect it’s pretty clear that the banning of military recruiters was foolish. I thought so at the time of the controversy only because defending the practice forced the Law School to argue that the law requiring hosting of recruiters was unconstitutional, using the silly and ultimately pernicious argument that hosting someone is a kind of promotion of their ideas, and that hosting recruiters is therefore ‘coerced speech.’
But the bigger picture is that in using force rather than words (i.e., this is our building, you can’t use it), the University employed the syntax of power rather than that of persuasion. And you can’t fight City Hall on those terms — they have the guns (and, in this case, the federal $).
Getting into a coercion contest with the government is dumb. As a buddy of mine would say, you gotta jiu jitsu that shit.
If this is a Long War against radical Islamism we’re fighting, I guess I would say that getting into a birthrate contest with the Middle East is dumb. We need to change the minds, not the population sizes, of the extremists not already dyed in the wool.
Standing Eagle
9/24/2007 9:24 am
Yeah, I’m pretty sure this isn’t chutzpah. I was thinking through the plot of Lear to try to understand the irony you were discerning but came up empty.
Chutzpah is a direct and brazen thing: like borrowing from the Social Security trust fund and then calling for its abolition because it’s “Just a bunch of IOUs.”
Standing Eagle
9/24/2007 9:26 am
I think the irony was that Bollinger was watching King Lear the night before. King Lear is a tragedy about a patriarchal figure whose misjudgment of his daughters brings about his downfall. A leader who has some misjudgment leading to a consequential downfall.
eayny
9/24/2007 9:36 am
Perhaps, then, Bollinger attended the play with his daughters, three of them… does he have daughters?
9/24/2007 9:39 am
Perhaps also he wore a little crown. Don’t be silly.
eayny
9/24/2007 10:17 am
In fact, I believe that one of his daughters was present.
9/24/2007 10:33 am
Here’s my ruling:
1) The chutzpah comment made no sense.
2) Military recruiters cannot be equated with political speakers of any stripe; the banning was appropriate.
3) RB is correct that Bollinger is to congratulated for allowing Iran’s president to speak. He’s as right on Bollinger as he was wrong on Broadhead (the dick).
9/24/2007 10:59 am
I don’t know, relaxing and watching a play (with your daughter apparently) about a tragic fallen king that night before one of the biggest controversies of your career seems like chutzpa to me. I just hope no one gets hurt if there is rioting. That to me will be the downfall regardless of the first amendment and other whatnot. We’ll see what happens.
9/24/2007 11:03 am
10:59 was me…eayny
9/24/2007 11:36 am
10:33,
I didn’t say the banning was inappropriate (and didn’t invoke free speech as a reason why). I said it was foolish — i.e., tactically unsound.
Standing Eagle
9/24/2007 12:57 pm
I think this is getting a little overblown. Does anyone really think that this incident represents any threat whatsoever to Bollinger? On an issue like this, I imagine the faculty is much more behind him on a free speech issue like this — excepting whoever the Columbia equivalents of Harvey Mansfield and Ruth Wisse are — than they were dealing with the controvery around the Middle Eastern Studies program, which raised a more difficult set of issues.
Let it also be noted that the Columbia Spectator seems to doing a very good job blogging this whole thing here. Has the Crimson ever done a similar liveblog?
9/24/2007 2:31 pm
I’ll be very interested in hearing the opinions of this forum on SHID. Because I’m in shock over how foolish and ungracious Bollinger has just presented himself by verbally attacking the Iranian president. I think it was an enormous mistake. Don’t tease mad dogs is a good rule of thumb. Bollinger is obviously not a diplomat. I don’t think Harvard is missing anything. Prove me wrong, please prove me wrong.
eayny
9/24/2007 2:35 pm
I meant SITD. Sorry, I’m so upset.
eayny
9/25/2007 12:07 am
Has the Crimson done a live blog before? Kind of, sort of.
Here’s one shot. The day that Drew Faust was selected.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=516939
9/25/2007 12:32 am
I agree…eayny…that was a useless damaging exercise as I’m sure George Bush and Admadinejad at the UN will be tomorrow. I understand though that Christiane Amanpour is going to be interviewing him on CNN Wednesday night…am guessing she’ll show how it’s done.
lmpaulsen