AHMADINEJAD SPEAKS AT COLUMBIA, AND, IN LETTING HIM DO SO, COLUMBIA SPEAKS VOLUMES TO THE STATE OF MORAL (AND INTELLECTUAL) DECAY IN ACADEMIA (part 1)
AHMADINEJAD SPEAKS AT COLUMBIA, AND, IN LETTING HIM DO SO, COLUMBIA SPEAKS VOLUMES TO THE STATE OF MORAL (AND INTELLECTUAL) DECAY IN ACADEMIA
By
Ken Eliasberg
I was appalled, but not the least bit surprised, by Columbia’s idiotic and, to say the least, unpatriotic, decision to let a monster address their faculty and student body. I was not surprised because I have followed academia’s descent into the moral abyss and intellectual oblivion. As you know, our kids don’t get an education any more - they get nothing but a left-wing indoctrination. What we are giving them is a lot of socializing blather rather than anything that approaches a classical education. Furthermore, we have so dumbed down our schools that it is considerably harder to flunk out of a school than it is to get straight As. Rather than maintain suitable standards and demanding higher levels of performance - i.e. a meritocracy - we have lowered standards in the interests of allegedly improving self esteem (by trying to minimize hurt feelings which might engender a sense of inferiority). I know, I know—you can’t donate self esteem; it is by its very nature something that can only be realized through achievement. All that aside (since it is too late for academia—particularly Columbia, which has been a bastion of left-wing, anti-American thinking for some time (recall Assistant Professor (God, how it pains me to call a moron like this a professor) Nicholas de Genova’s reaction to 9/11—i.e. he hoped that U.S. soldiers would experience “a million Mogadishus” )) was it necessary to welcome this barbarian into our hallowed halls of academia? Apparently, in the eyes of academia, it was. Go figure. Nonetheless, I naively thought (hoped?) that all was not lost—that there was still a vestige of common sense (not to mention common decency) left at a University that at one time represented all that was associated with American excellence in scholarship. Also, that, while some of its professors may have wandered off the range (the planet?), they might not necessarily speak for the institution that is Columbia. I was wrong, and it saddens me. How do you justify letting a genocidal, anti-American, lunatic speak at a prestigious facility, thereby investing him with a stature that all of Iran’s oil could not otherwise buy. And when I say stature, I certainly include credibility. What was Columbia thinking? Were they thinking at all? I don’t think so.
The news of Columbia’s decision to issue an invitation to Ahmadinejad was not well received in most nonacademic circles; Columbia’s response was essentially little more than a reminder that a combination of free speech and academia’s concern for an open society was sufficient cause for allowing this genocidal lunatic to be heard. And, of course, the searing brilliance of Columbia’s faculty and student body would expose to all the failings of this madman. Thus, rather than hide him, let’s defeat him in open debate. To which the ordinary man in the street might legitimately ask—why? Do you really think he came to debate, and, if there were a chance of some form of debate, do you really think he was concerned? As it turned out, had he entertained any concerns along these lines, it took only a matter of minutes for Columbia’s best and brightest to allay any fears he might have entertained. After a brief but pungent introduction by Columbia’s president, Lee Bollinger, in which he flexed his scholarly and patriotic muscles by excoriating Ahmadinejad for being such an unpleasant fellow, Ahmadinejad took all of about 2 minutes to parry that thrust by calling attention to the Dean’s rude upbraiding and reminding him that, in Iran, it was bad manners to invite someone into your home and then insult him. Round 1 to Ahmadinejad.
Everyone (and anyone) who was the least bit knowledgeable about Ahmadinejad knew everything that President Bollinger had to say, so, in that sense, he was preaching to the choir. To the uninformed, Ahmadinejad had a point. You call me in to an academic environment to engage me in some form of debate or inquiry, and you open our dialogue with an insulting rant. He looked reasonable—at least to the uninformed (which, these days, consists of not just the student body portion of academia, but a regrettably large portion of its faculty). And, to those who might be partially informed (and, after all, isn’t it these people that we are trying to win over to America’s cause), Ahmadinejad seemed reasonable, almost pleasant—particularly when contrasted with Bollinger’s open hostility.
Things went down hill from there. Why? Because the faculty member selected to engage Ahmadinejad in the question-and-answer format selected for this academic charade—one, John Coatsworth, Acting Dean, School of International and Public Affairs - not only made Bollinger look brilliant, more to the point, he made Ahmadinejad look both brilliant and charming, not to mention the victim of bad manners. In short, the whole thing was a fiasco. Columbia gave a ruthless tyrant a forum which, as noted, no amount of money could have bought him. It gave him stature and standing in the world community. And, in the eyes of the Arab world, he looked to be clearly the victor. He had come into the bosom of the Great Satan and looked reasonable, certainly both more reasonable and more intelligent than his interrogators.
Now, the immediate question is why was this either desirable or necessary? What aspect of scholarship, the search for truth, advancement of the American cause (silly me, this is American academia in 2007; they are not looking to advance any American cause—patriotism is the last thing on the mind of higher education today) did this further? And, of course, the simple answer is none!!! Perhaps the more penetrating question is does any view point, no matter how hostile to America’s best interests and aired by a genocidal maniac have to be given an audience in our most respected academic circles? Or, even on free speech grounds, is all speech free? Of course not! It has long been recognized that this freedom is not without certain constraints. For example, it is a violation of free speech to yell fire in a crowded theatre (when there is no fire). Pivoting off this exception, I would submit that giving Ahmadinejad a platform of this nature was worse than shouting fire in a crowded theatre; it was the equivalent of starting a fire in a crowded theatre—the crowded theatre that is Western Civilization (to be continued).