Why Bollinger Did It: Ego, Ego, Ego

As much doubt as I had about Columbia's rationale for inviting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak, and as little faith I had in Columbia prez Lee Bollinger really asking him tough questions, I have to say upon reading the transcript that I'm impressed.

Let's start at the obvious place; the end:

Let me close with this comment. Frankly, and in all candor, Mr. President, I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions. But your avoiding them will in itself be meaningful to us. I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical mindset that characterizes so much of what you say and do. Fortunately, I am told by experts on your country, that this only further undermines your position in Iran with all the many good-hearted, intelligent citizens there. A year ago, I am reliably told, your preposterous and belligerent statements in this country (as in your meeting at the Council on Foreign Relations) so embarrassed sensible Iranian citizens that this led to your party’s defeat in the December mayoral elections. May this do that and more.

I am only a professor, who is also a university president, and today I feel all the weight of the modern civilized world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for. I only wish I could do better.

Ahmadinejad, of course, kept the revulsion meter running.

In my post this afternoon before the transcript of the college prez and the upchuck-elevating Iranian prez was released, I worried that Bollinger hadn't adequately covered Iran's active involvement in the killing of our soldiers and its desire to vaporize Israel in his questions. But non. On Iran's actions against our soldiers:

In a briefing before the National Press Club earlier this month, General David Petraeus reported that arms supplies from Iran, including 240mm rockets and explosively formed projectiles, are contributing to “a sophistication of attacks that would by no means be possible without Iranian support.”

A number of Columbia graduates and current students are among the brave members of our military who are serving or have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. They, like other Americans with sons, daughters, fathers, husbands and wives serving in combat, rightly see your government as the enemy.

Can you tell them and us why Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq by arming Shi’a militia targeting and killing U.S. troops?

I would have gone quite a lot farther, but all in all not bad for a Bush-hating, war-hating liberal college prof. And as for his desire to put Israel permanently on hold:

Twelve days ago, you said that the state of Israel “cannot continue its life.” This echoed a number of inflammatory statements you have delivered in the last two years, including in October 2005 when you said that Israel should be “wiped off the map.”

Columbia has over 800 alumni currently living in Israel. As an institution we have deep ties with our colleagues there. I personally have spoken out in the most forceful terms against proposals to boycott Israeli scholars and universities, saying that such boycotts might as well include Columbia. More than 400 college and university presidents in this country have joined in that statement. My question, then, is: Do you plan on wiping us off the map, too?

A little egocentric, but it'll do. And the egocentric nature of this question shines light on why Bollinger refused to cancel the invitation. It was just too big a spotlight for him to dim.

Still, and even taking into account how much better Lee Bollinger must feel about himself tonight, I still say it was a mistake to give Ahmadinejad a forum beyond the one forum we had no choice over, the UN General Assembly.

Did Bollinger Completely Miss The Point?

Update: The Bollinger transcript is out; view it here. He did quite a good job all in all, as I discuss above ... which I'll post as soon as I'm done.

I'm still waiting for a transcript of Lee Bollinger's reportedly scathing introduction of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to be posted. Despite the views of some I respect that it was an award-winning intro, I'm holding my opinion until I can see the transcript.

Here's why.

The LAT clip below is indicative of most clips I've read regarding the appearance:

In his scathing introduction to the much-anticipated on-campus event, Bollinger told the leader of Iran that he resembled "a petty and cruel dictator."

Bollinger levied repeated criticisms against Ahmadinejad, calling on him to answer a series of challenges about his leadership, blasting his views about the "myth" of the Holocaust "absurd" and saying that he doubted he "will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions."

"Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator," Bollinger said, to loud applause.

He said Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust might fool the illiterate and ignorant.

It appears from all the coverage I've read that Bollinger focused on the Holocaust, which certainly wouldn't have been my focus. As appalling has Ahmadinejad's view on the Holocaust is, it is inconsequential in terms of the politics of today. That's not to say the extermination of Jews isn't a critical issue, but Bollinger should have gone after Ahmadinejad for his declarations that Israel should be wiped off the map today. That is much more relevant than his denial that Hitler tried to exterminate them 60 years ago.

I also have seen no mention that Bollinger attacked Ahmadinejad for Iran's supply of munitions, funding and training to terrorists in Iraq, all in a deliberate effort to kill as many American troops as possible.

It would have taken some real courage to bring that up at Columbia, a place where a fair number on the faculty and in the student body probably think killing "imperialist" U.S. soldiers is a fine thing to do. Criticizing holocaust deniers, in contrast, is not risk-taking in an American campus (yet, thank God), so I don't give Bollinger any kudos for that.

Like I say, when I get to read the transcript, I may change my viewpoint.

Meanwhile, I thought David Schizer, the dean of the Columbia Law School did some pretty commendable risk-taking with this statement:

A controversy has developed about the invitation extended to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran by the Columbia School of International and Public Affairs. Although Columbia Law School was not involved in arranging this invitation, we have received many inquiries about it.

This event raises deep and complicated issues about how best to express our commitment to intellectual freedom, and to our free way of life. Although we believe in free and open debate at Columbia and should never suppress points of view, we are also committed to academic standards. A high-quality academic discussion depends on intellectual honesty but, unfortunately, Mr. Ahmadinejad has proven himself, time and again, to be uninterested in whether his words are true. Therefore, my personal opinion is that he should not be invited to speak. Mr. Ahmadinejad is a reprehensible and dangerous figure who presides over a repressive regime, is responsible for the death of American soldiers, denies the Holocaust, and calls for the destruction of Israel. It would be deeply regrettable if some misread this invitation as lending prestige or legitimacy to his views.

Our university is a pluralistic place, and I recognize that others within our community take a different view in good faith, and that they have the right to extend invitations that I personally would not extend. I know that we will learn from each other in discussing the difficult questions prompted by this invitation. (emphasis added)

That's getting it right.

Meanwhile, over at Kos, we read this:

As an American, I was stunned and embarrassed by Bollinger's harangue of Ahmedinejad. It was a craven and cowardly capitulation to political pressures, and unworthy of the academic institution that Bollinger represents. I know who and what Ahmedinejad is, but I also know that he was at Columbia at Columbia's invitation. Bollinger's speech was less a challenge to Ahmedinejad than it was an ambush, and it dishonered [sic] all of us as Americans.

Hmm. I wonder what this writer's response would be if Bollinger had been equally pointed in introducing the president of the United States. I'll hazard a guess that he wouldn't think that to be unworthy of Columbia or -- and this is really odd -- dishonoring to Americans.

And speaking of Kos, we also see this on the site, courtesy of LGF:

Obviously, this is not a poll based on reality so a lot of people used it to make political statements that do not reflect what their actual actions would have been if we were suddenly transported to Bizzaro World, where such a vote might in fact take place.

Be that as it may, Kos posed the question, a question no one on the Left in the pre-Bush era would have ever thought about asking. It appears that as the Bush administration is winding down, the demented hatred of Bush is only increasing among the rabid Left.

hat-tip: memeorandum

Columbia Has A Lot To Learn

Columbia University. A front-row seat of higher learning, where only the smartest go to get even smarter. As a mere honor roll student of meager means, I couldn't have hoped to get into a school like Columbia, a school so elite and prestigious.

So I have to wonder what has happened to this great university over the four decades since I graduated from high school that would cause its president, Lee Bollinger, to defend Columbia's speaking invitation to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by saying:

"It's extremely important to know who the leaders are of countries that are your adversaries. To watch them to see how they think, to see how they reason or do not reason. To see whether they're fanatical, or to see whether they are sly." (WSJ)

Bollinger is a First Amendment scholar and author of high repute and a former clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger, so he knows he is on solid legal ground in extending and defending the invitation. But why does he think so little of the smart kids who got accepted to his school?

Does he think they will really gain anything from seeing a polished politician on his best behavior, far from the protection of his elite Revolutionary Guards and his Mullahs? Does he think for a moment that he is tricking Ahmadinejad into revealing his true, brutal, hateful, repressive, totalitarian, theocratic, fanatic, GI-killing self, so the students of Columbia will see the world as it is?

Or is he merely being an academic pawn, supporting the purpose of Ahmadinejad's trip, which is to project a positive image of Ahmadinejad as a thoughtful man who is dedicated to the downtrodden?

In other words, Ahmadinejad is on a mission to present a lie, and Bollinger -- whose university is home to aggressively antisemitic and anti-Israel scholars -- is giving him that forum.

The students of Columbia will see a polite, learned man not dissimilar to the man who presented to the Council on Foreign Relations during his last visit. In other words, one who thinks well (if faultily), who reasons well (if intolerantly) and who appears to be anything but a fanatic. A man who will try his hardest to make President Bush appear to be the one who doesn't think well, who doesn't reason well, and who uses his fanatical Islamophobia and Christian crusading against Islam.

In that, he will be sly. Will the Columbia students see the slyness? If they do, will they learn from it? Will they learn as much as they would have learned if Bollinger instead had rebuffed his faculty and others and said, no, Columbia is a place of higher learning, and that precludes invitations to men like Ahmadinejad?

I think not, but I also think Duncan Hunter is woefully wrong in his approach to the situation:

"For an institution of Columbia University's caliber, it is inconceivable that you would provide President Ahmadinejad with this opportunity," said Mr. Hunter, who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination. "I trust the University will do the right thing and immediately withdraw its invitation to President Ahmadinejad. However, should you choose to go forward, I intend to introduce legislation in Congress to disqualify Columbia University from any future federal support." (WashTimes)

Bollinger knows the First Amendment will shred any such effort by Hunter, and Hunter should know better than to issue the threat, which just makes him look like a book-burner and worse, a believer in a big, heavy-handed government.

It is not government's place to slap Bollinger around. That role falls to the funders of Columbia University -- from its big benefactors to the corporations and individuals that underwrite scholarships, to the parents who pay the tuition, to the students who enroll there. These are the people and institutions that should rise up against Bollinger's entirely legal but entirely irresponsible decision and give the man some hurt.

As he sees the millions drain away, will he react rationally, as a man who thinks well, and apologize -- or will he react fanatically, like a die-hard liberal academic, and continue to bite the hands that feed his institution?

Whichever, it's clear that Columbia, like all our foremost universities, has a lot to learn.