Columbia University and Free Speech?

RMNIXON · 09-22-2007, 01:47 PM

Don't they understand that this man contradicts the fundamental standards of the university, which are order, morality, personal honor and most importantly, the rights of others? He has aggressively abused international law!

Columbia Won't Cancel Ahmadinejad Speech

NEW YORK (AP) - Columbia University said it does not plan to call off a speech by Iran's president despite pressure from critics including the City Council speaker, who said the Ivy League school was providing a forum for "hate-mongering vitriol."

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is traveling to New York to address the United Nations' General Assembly. He was to appear Monday at a question-and- answer session with Columbia faculty and students as part of the school's World Leaders Forum.

The State Department calls Iran a state sponsor of terror, and Ahmadinejad has called the Holocaust "a myth" and urged for Israel to be destroyed.
City Council speaker Christine Quinn called Thursday for the university to rescind the invitation, saying "the idea of Ahmadinejad as an honored guest anywhere in our city is offensive to all New Yorkers."

Quinn, a Democrat, said Ahmadinejad was coming to the city "for one reason—to spread his hate-mongering vitriol on the world stage."
His planned appearance at Columbia also was condemned by Jewish groups including the Jewish Defense Organization, which described Ahmadinejad as "the Hitler of Iran."

Columbia spokesman Robert Hornsby said Thursday there was no plan to cancel the appearance, though the university dropped plans for an Ahmadinejad speech last year because of security and logistical problems. The decision came after a Jewish activist group expressed outrage over the invitation.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Friday that the university was free to invite Ahmadinejad to speak, but "personally, I wouldn't go to listen to him—I don't care about what he says."
White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said Friday that the Bush administration had no involvement with Columbia's decision.

__________________________________________________ ______________

Oh wait a minute?

I was looking at the wrong story the whole time!

Here is that story:

Rumsfeld fellowship stirs anger

By Terence Chea
The Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO - A growing number of Stanford University students and professors are protesting the conservative Hoover Institution's decision to appoint former U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as a visiting fellow.

As of Friday, more than 2,500 students, alumni and faculty members have signed an online petition that opposes the Stanford-based think tank's appointment of Rumsfeld, who resigned from the Bush administration after the November 2006 elections amid widespread dissatisfaction over his handling of the Iraq war.

"He contradicts the fundamental standards of the university, which are order, morality, personal honor and most importantly, the rights of others," said Pamela Lee, a Stanford art history professor who helped write the petition. "This person has played a critical role in a disastrously failed military policy. He has aggressively abused international law."

The Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace announced earlier this month that Rumsfeld, who served as President Bush's defense secretary for almost six years, would join a task force that will focus on issues related to "ideology and terror" in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

"Don has had immense experience in public service and has much to contribute to society as a result," Hoover director John Raisan said in a statement announcing Rumsfeld's appointment.
The controversy highlights the strained relationship between the conservative Hoover Institution, a well-funded public policy research center founded in 1919, and the Palo Alto campus's more liberal faculty and student body.

The Hoover Institution has hosted many prominent conservatives as visiting fellows - including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Secretary of State George Shultz and retired Army Gen. John Abizaid - though few have generated as much opposition as Rumsfeld.

motivez · 09-22-2007, 02:08 PM

Two different universities with two different student bodies make two different decisions? zOmG stop the presses

Also, what international law has Ahmadinejad abused?

Rouger2 · 09-22-2007, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Two different universities with two different student bodies make two different decisions? zOmG stop the presses

Also, what international law has Ahmadinejad abused?

He is kind of a funny fellow who seems to enjoy his media exposure in the west, and I think, is kind of trying to reach out to us. He doesn't seem scary at all. He is a nationalist but I have no knowlege of how he has treated his own people, and Iran is suppose to be arming Sunni Iraqis in their fight with us.

RMNIXON · 09-22-2007, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Also, what international law has Ahmadinejad abused?

I will look into that? Perhaps the killing of American troops in Iraq with the help of Iran insurgents and weapons does not violate any such law?

How can I be so careless and stupid!

Stylerod · 09-22-2007, 04:36 PM

Most University's would accept any world leader that hates Bush. It wouldn't matter if it was Castro, Che, Stalin, Ahmadinejad, Hitler or Pol Pot.

Any enemy if Bush, is a friend of the Liberals.

motivez · 09-22-2007, 06:12 PM

JaJae · 09-22-2007, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Two different universities with two different student bodies make two different decisions? zOmG stop the presses

I agree, this is really stretching here. Two separate incidents doesn't constitute a unified argument.

Also, what international law has Ahmadinejad abused?

I could think of quite a few UN Resolutions involving Iraq, Hezballoh, Hamas, Israel, nuclear violations, harboring al qaeda members etc.

motivez · 09-22-2007, 06:25 PM

Feel free to list them, then

And UN resolutions are binding for sovereign nations now? We have to do what the UN tells us?

JaJae · 09-22-2007, 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Feel free to list them, then

1373, 1737, 1747... (I think off the top of my head) They're all public record and presented are very commonly within mass media.
Security Council Resolutions

And UN resolutions are binding for sovereign nations now? We have to do what the UN tells us?

That depends. We don't have to do anything that anyone in any international body tells us to do. However, there can be consequences to those actions.

motivez · 09-22-2007, 06:39 PM

Please list some detail about them since they're on the top of your head, I don't want to go searching for them

And I wasn't aware that UN resolutions had the same status as 'international law', which is what I was asking

I don't like Ahmadinejad or what he stands for, but I wouldn't avoid an opportunity to ask him questions and listen to what he has to say.. so I applaud Colombia, a University where learning is surely a fundamental goal, for using this as an attempt to learn more about a figure who's one of the most talked about people the last couple of years..

Trying to avoid people you disagree with is usually just a pathetic attempt to reinforce a previously established worldview instead of embracing the fact that people are different, think different things, and trying to come to a better understanding of those differences.

JaJae · 09-22-2007, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Please list some detail about them since they're on the top of your head, I don't want to go searching for them

Sure, as said a couple posts above, there are UN Resolutions that state you can't arm certain groups Iran is arming, they are violating resolutions put on their nuclear program and they are in violation of resolutions regarding harboring terrorists.

And I wasn't aware that UN resolutions had the same status as 'international law', which is what I was asking

I don't like Ahmadinejad or what he stands for, but I wouldn't avoid an opportunity to ask him questions and listen to what he has to say.. so I applaud Colombia, a University where learning is surely a fundamental goal, for using this as an attempt to learn more about a figure who's one of the most talked about people the last couple of years..

Trying to avoid people you disagree with is usually just a pathetic attempt to reinforce a previously established worldview instead of embracing the fact that people are different, think different things, and trying to come to a better understanding of those differences.

I disagree with applauding Columbia for giving a man like Ahmadinejad an outlet to feel welcome in our nation and a chance to speak his rhetoric to America. It's not about avoiding him, call his ass on the phone if they want to know what he has to say. But giving him an open invitation to speak to the students of America I think is probably not a good political move.

motivez · 09-22-2007, 06:51 PM

If Roosevelt and Churchill could sit next to Stalin, I have no problem with a prominent University allowing an elected semi-leader of a nation the chance to speak and be asked questions, regardless of how much I disagree with what they have to say.

The sooner we start to move away from the "we wont talk or treat with respect people we disagree with" ideology, the better.

Engaging in dialogue is a good thing. It promotes understanding on both sides.

JaJae · 09-22-2007, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

If Roosevelt and Churchill could sit next to Stalin, I have no problem with a prominent University allowing an elected semi-leader of a nation the chance to speak and be asked questions, regardless of how much I disagree with what they have to say.

The sooner we start to move away from the "we wont talk or treat with respect people we disagree with" ideology, the better.

Engaging in dialogue is a good thing. It promotes understanding on both sides.

There has been no lack of dialogue from Ahmadinejad that I can see recently. Anyone who wants to know his positions can find them pretty easily. However, as we've seen throughout history in the Middle East that showing weakness and non-unity further gives them the ability to think they can do whatever they want. We saw it when Pelosi went to Syria and they rolled back women's rights and threw people seeking democracy in jail and cited America being divided.

It is a different culture than ours. Ahmadinejad does not share in the Columbia student mentality.

motivez · 09-22-2007, 07:03 PM

You should look up the definition of dialogue then, because there's not been really any meaningful reciprocal conversation between the US and Iran since we were kicked out of their country in a massive backlash from our involvement in overthrowing their elected leader and replacing him with a brutal dictator friendly to our business interests..

Ahmadinejad talking and no one engaging him isn't dialogue.

garbagemanlb · 09-22-2007, 07:22 PM

It is going to be a Q and A session. He will be asked questions on various controversial issues and statements he has made. He will not be simply given an mic and that's it.

It's almost like you conservatives are afraid of what he has to say.

Frankly, I'd say the American people deserve to hear from the guy that we may very well be going to WAR with before any such action is taken.

garbagemanlb · 09-22-2007, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

There has been no lack of dialogue from Ahmadinejad that I can see recently. Anyone who wants to know his positions can find them pretty easily. However, as we've seen throughout history in the Middle East that showing weakness and non-unity further gives them the ability to think they can do whatever they want. We saw it when Pelosi went to Syria and they rolled back women's rights and threw people seeking democracy in jail and cited America being divided.

It is a different culture than ours. Ahmadinejad does not share in the Columbia student mentality.

Considering all I hear mentioned in the press are his claims to want to wipe Israel off the map and his denial of the holocaust, I seriously would like him to justify those arguments, and he will likely be made to do so at Columbia.

Thankfully the university isn't bowing down to those who want to stifle free speech in this country.

Stylerod · 09-22-2007, 07:54 PM

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

It is going to be a Q and A session. He will be asked questions on various controversial issues and statements he has made. He will not be simply given an mic and that's it.

It's almost like you conservatives are afraid of what he has to say.

Frankly, I'd say the American people deserve to hear from the guy that we may very well be going to WAR with before any such action is taken.

Of course. He will tell the truth and be completely charming. He has no reason to lie.

Let me know if you need to know who the guy on the left is.

garbagemanlb · 09-22-2007, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Of course. He will tell the truth and be completely charming. He has no reason to lie.

Let me know if you need to know who the guy on the left is.

...and you're point is what? He is the leader of the one of the most important countries (relating to our foreign policy) today. His potential to lie is no reason to refuse him the opportunity to take questions from the audience.

On a side note, I wonder how you conservatives feel about U.S. involvement in Afghanistan when the Soviet Union invaded them? I bring this up not to justify what Iran is doing, just to put it into perspective. One of the biggest issues I have with the neocons is their insistence that we always have the moral high ground, obviously never taking our past actions (and their influence on others) into consideration.

Stylerod · 09-22-2007, 08:28 PM

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

...and you're point is what? He is the leader of the one of the most important countries (relating to our foreign policy) today. His potential to lie is no reason to refuse him the opportunity to take questions from the audience.

It's like having a Q/A with this guy

http://writingcompany.blogs.com/this...hdad_bob_1.jpg

What's the point? You really think he's going to tell the truth about what his intentions are or do you think he is g