President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran was allowed to speak at Columbia University last week. This decision was both applauded and criticized loudly. He denies that the holocaust happened, his government sponsors terrorism, his government is one of the most repressive of human rights in the world, and he has vowed to wipe Israel off the map. So, were they wrong to let him speak? Supporters say that free speech and the allowing of every view to have a fair hearing is part of the reason, but another part is that he is newsworthy as the leader of a country we may well go to war against. But the same Columbia doesn’t allow ROTC to recruit on campus and it withdrew its invitation to a Minutemen spokesman just as it was allowing this speech.
Post-show thoughts: Ethical evaluations of the decisions others make fall into three categories. First, choices that are so obviously good that everyone can affirm anyone in the situation should make them. Second, choices that are so obviously bad that everyone can affirm that anyone in the situation should not make them. Third, choices that fall somewhere between these two extremes. Within this latter category, we may well have our own thoughts, but it's vital to remember that we are outsiders looking in on the decision made by someone else who is actually in the position with the authority to make it and who will be held responsible for the decision. Since I can't come to the conclusion that this decision was in either category one or two, I believe in deferring to the judgment of Columbia President Lee Bollinger who both has the authority and the responsibility for this decision. Sure, Ahmadinejad is a nut, but one of the best ways to prove nuttiness is to give someone a stage. And he hit a home run on that account. If we do wind up going to war with Iran, no one will be able to dispute who he is.
On the other hand, it's pretty clear that Columbia has been highly selective about to whom it extends its vaunted forum for the free expression of unusual and minority views. Just last month, they rescinded the offer for the founder of the Minutemen to come speak again after his experience last year of being shouted off the stage by angry student protesters. Couple that with the fact that Columbia doesn't allow ROTC to recruit on campus, and you certainly aren't left with the impression that they are suffering from a glut of consistency at the University.
Post-show thoughts: Ethical evaluations of the decisions others make fall into three categories. First, choices that are so obviously good that everyone can affirm anyone in the situation should make them. Second, choices that are so obviously bad that everyone can affirm that anyone in the situation should not make them. Third, choices that fall somewhere between these two extremes. Within this latter category, we may well have our own thoughts, but it's vital to remember that we are outsiders looking in on the decision made by someone else who is actually in the position with the authority to make it and who will be held responsible for the decision. Since I can't come to the conclusion that this decision was in either category one or two, I believe in deferring to the judgment of Columbia President Lee Bollinger who both has the authority and the responsibility for this decision. Sure, Ahmadinejad is a nut, but one of the best ways to prove nuttiness is to give someone a stage. And he hit a home run on that account. If we do wind up going to war with Iran, no one will be able to dispute who he is.
On the other hand, it's pretty clear that Columbia has been highly selective about to whom it extends its vaunted forum for the free expression of unusual and minority views. Just last month, they rescinded the offer for the founder of the Minutemen to come speak again after his experience last year of being shouted off the stage by angry student protesters. Couple that with the fact that Columbia doesn't allow ROTC to recruit on campus, and you certainly aren't left with the impression that they are suffering from a glut of consistency at the University.
1 comment:
The same day that Iranian despot Mahmoud Ahmadenijad was widely protested while speaking at Columbia University, Turkmen despot Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov was widely ignored while speaking at the very same Columbia University. The New York Times (which didn't attend Berdymukhammedov's speech) reports that Radio Free Europe was the only English-language media at the speech.
The NGO Freedom House gives Iran a political rights score of six, a civil rights score of six and the status of "not free." Turkmenistan gets scores of seven, seven and "not free." So why all the protesters at Ahmadinejad's speech, but nary a peep about Berdymukhammedov? Could it be because no one is agitating for war with Turkmenistan, like they are with Iran?
Post a Comment