Lee Bollinger, Still on the Spot
Posted on September 26th, 2007 in Uncategorized | 15 Comments »
The New York Sun claims that there’s a backlash on campus against Columbia president Lee Bollinger.
A backlash against the president of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, who on Monday delivered a harsh rebuke to President Ahmadinejad, is coming from faculty members and students who said he struck an “insulting tone” and that his remarks amounted to “schoolyard taunts.” The fierceness of Mr. Bollinger’s critique bought the Iranian some sympathy on campus that he didn’t deserve, the critics said, and amounted to a squandered opportunity to provide a lesson in diplomacy.A backlash against the president of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, who on Monday delivered a harsh rebuke to President Ahmadinejad, is coming from faculty members and students who said he struck an “insulting tone” and that his remarks amounted to “schoolyard taunts.” The fierceness of Mr. Bollinger’s critique bought the Iranian some sympathy on campus that he didn’t deserve, the critics said, and amounted to a squandered opportunity to provide a lesson in diplomacy.
The Times reports on the same thing.
Before Iranâs president took the stage at Columbia University on Monday, the universityâs president, Lee C. Bollinger, sent out an early-morning e-mail message, calling on students and faculty âto live up to the best of Columbiaâs traditions.â Yesterday, many critics questioned whether Mr. Bollinger had met that test himself.
On balance, did Bollinger come out ahead in the A-jad brouhaha?
15 Responses
9/26/2007 9:17 am
Columbia in general does not come out well in this episode. It’s unclear what the struggles and negotiations were between their Center for Middle Eastern Studies, theis School of International Affairs and the President’s Office and what responsibility each of these offices bears for the mess.
Perhaps the Trustees at Columbia should find out. As for Bollinger, he may be the first casualty of the Iran war.
9/26/2007 9:21 am
To start perhaps they could ask Richard Bulliet, John Coatsworth and Lee Bollinger, separately, what were they trying to achieve with their respective actions (invite the guy, state that they would invite Hitler, insult the guy, respectively) and what they thought the consequences of their actions would be for themselves, for their institutes, for Columbia and for Iran-US relations.
One should hope that intelligent people like these should have reasonable answers to these fundamental questions. Answering them provides these individuals an opportunity to demonstrate their good judgement.
9/26/2007 9:33 am
I think Bollinger’s introductory remarks were ill-considered. Here was an occasion where he could simply have given a brief explanation of the principle of free speech, encouraging the audience to listen and then thoughtfully discuss the views that Ahminejad was about to present. Bollinger could then simply have turned the floor over to his guest. That would have been the elegant and diplomatic way to proceed. Rather than the introductory remarks, the Q & A was the appropriate place for discussion of Ahmadinejad’s views. Now, alas, Bollinger has added fuel to the flames of Iranian resentment of America.
9/26/2007 9:39 am
But Prof. Ryan, free speech isn’t a principle that entails INVITING people to campus. The reasons Bollinger gave were more compelling.
I wish he had been clearer about where his facts were coming from (‘proxy war’?).
But in the end I think everyone should concede that this was NOT a mess. Where was the mess? A-jad said a couple reasonable things, and a couple things that got him well-deserved mockery. Let the regressive forces of the world speak (“ha! in MY country we do not HAVE homosexuality! Foolish Americans!”) and then let them be roundly jeered. This is how battles of ideas are joined and won.
A perfectly successful episode for academia, for free exchange, and for US interests. Where was the harm?
SE
9/26/2007 9:40 am
9:26 makes a good suggestion. Transparency is good.
9/26/2007 9:55 am
In the spirit of transparency it would be helpful to understand that interests of foreign states does Steven C. Schwadron represent, if any.
9/26/2007 10:48 am
Bollinger personalized, and thus marginalized, his remarks. I disagree that he should have been “diplomatic” and simply made a bland statement supporting free speech. What he should have done is provide context by stating the counterargument to A-Jad’s views without stooping to namecalling. He needn’t have targeted A-Jad at all. It would have been much more constructive to talk about how free speech allows all sorts of crazy ideas to flourish, and here’s the facts with a few notable such ideas, starting perhaps with the Holocaust deniers. Bollinger lost a golden opportunity.
9/26/2007 10:54 am
Bollinger may not be as naive as some in this blog think. Follow the money. These petro-states can be very generous to Institutes of Mid-East Studies, and even to Schools of International Affairs. Isn’t Steven C. Schwadron the former chief of staff of Bill Delahunt, and someone who knows Hugo Chavez and other heads of state really well?
9/26/2007 11:12 am
Some of the leaders of these oil producing countries do a lot of good in the US. For an example look at Joe Kennedy’s Citizens Energy Corp
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009310
9/26/2007 11:15 am
This is all very interesting. Ted Kennedy chairs a committee that will have to discuss a bill that proposes greater oversight of Centers for Middle Eastern Studies.
Is Delahunt involved in this in any way?
http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1105
9/26/2007 11:41 am
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez share some interests, and meet from time to time. Do they also share lobbyists of the US Congress?
From NYC Ahmadinejad is flying to Caracas. Any americans flying with him on this trip?
9/26/2007 11:47 am
is Bollinger even aware of the politics that are running under his nose?
http://www.repubblica.it/news/ired/ultimora/2006/rep_nazionale_n_2545258.html?ref=hpsbdx
9/26/2007 1:39 pm
11:12 it would be so nice if some of those leaders who do much good for the US in the area of oil could do so without trampling student movements, free speech, free press and political dissent in their own countries.
9/27/2007 12:30 am
Since you are a magazine guy, give us the scoop: is it surprising that Josh Green’s article got spiked at GQ because the Clintons used their mojo?
9/27/2007 9:08 am
oil shipping tankers is the name of the game. Not enough of them and big bucks to be made moving all this oil around.
How was the invite to Columbia related to oil shipping companies?
http://voanews.com/english/2007-09-24-voa61.cfm