If you watch the news you probably know that the President of Iran Mahmouhd Ahmadinejad is in NYC today to attend a UN conference. While he was in town, Columbia University thought it would be a good opportunity to snag a world leader to engage with students as a guest speaker. While on the surface, this may seem like a reasonable exchange of ideas-- it is not.
A political figure like Ahmadinejad is a incredibly divisive figure; he is a hate-monger whose ideas should not be invited to permeate our academic institutions unchallenged. By inviting him to speak at Columbia, we give his ideas more merit than they deserve. It is on par with inviting the leader of the Klu Klux Klan to share his ideas on the Aryan nation. His intentions are bad. His information is slanted. And worse still, his engagement with students is likely to gain him a modicum of support. State leaders are invariably charming and masters of information. Ahmadinejad will present himself as a moderate Islamic Leader, and some students will buy it.
An informative debate is only beneficial when the players involved respect the basic rule that they are not going to alter facts-- they use the facts to make subjective opinions and inferences. Political warfare, which Ahmadinejad is currently engaged in, does not respect this rule. Therefore, Ahmadinejad is not going to be engaged in a constructive dialog with students, it will merely be political theater. Columbia has a responsibility to moderate the lecture, and to contrast his words against his prior statements. (EDIT)
If a student leaves the lecture saying "He doesn't seem like that bad of a guy..." then Columbia has done a great disservice to its students. Ahmadinejad deserves to be challenged at every turn for his government's actions, inflammatory statements, and personal conduct.
In the last year alone, he has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel and all its people. He has repeatedly denied the existence of the Holocaust. His government continues to sponsor terrorism both against our soldiers in Iraq, and against Israel. More troubling is that Iran continues to pursue nuclear weapons.
Ahmadinejad: Destruction of Israel
When the leader of a country calls for the destruction of another country and is currently seeking the capability to bring about such destruction-- we should take notice. Iran is a strategic enemy of the United States-- their leaders seek to undermine our mission in the Middle East through any means necessary. Ahmadinejad is venturing to the United States to engage in information warfare. Columbia University needs to challenge Ahmadinejad at every turn for his conduct. Ahmadinejad is a radical leader whose words may bring about Word War III. Columbia students have a large responsibltiy before them.
Ahmadinejad : Holocaust Denial
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I agree he is the leader of a radical nation with dangerous, hateful idealogy. I think its very interesting that he was given a forum in our country to be observed and critiqued by some of our brightest, thoughtful young people. He is a major antagonist in the world drama (as written by the West). He plays an important role, even if it is as a mirror for humanity to see its own weaknesses and failings.
We must not forget the hatred and tragedy for which our own nation is directly responsible (ie a misguided war on Iraq, policing the world, forcing our idealogy on ancient nations). Let the man talk, and his badness will be apparent to the world. He is the only world leader on the front-page headlines that can make Bush look like a decent person. I was very interested to read his comments, to study his ignorance and hate. To censor him would be a disservice to our scholarly elite.
Its like if Skeletor was invited to speak at a conference at Castle Greyskull. Would you censor him for fear the young scholars of Eternia would become henchmen in his axis of evil? (I hear Moss-man needs a roommate.) Or, would his speech imbue them with a better understanding of Eternia's dark magic?
You make some good points, especially with the Skeletor analogy.
I think the core of my argument is that Ahmadinejad shouldn't have been given an open forum to speak in unchallenged lecture format. From the reporting I have seen today, it sounds like Columbia seized on the opportunity to challenge him in a highly moderated session-- as I would have hoped.
They challenged his views, remarks, and actions at every turn, and as result they painted him in a thoroughly ignorant light.
Justice served.
I made some edits to tighten my argument up. It did read the way you said.
It wasn't an unchallenged lecture. it was a question and answer format, and he was definitely put on the spot (by the the president and students) and was even laughed at when he gave a patently absurd response on the issue (read: corporal punishment) of homosexuality in Iran: "we do not have gays in our country. who told you that?")
I think disallowing interaction, especially in a forum such as this, based on some kind of subjective moral spectrum (and you can't deny it's subjective) is inherently dangerous. You sound suspiciously like you want to "protect" those students from being influenced. What other influences do you want to protect them from? Who gets to draw the line? Dick Cheney?
Post a Comment