AHMADINEJAD AT COLUMBIA & LYNNE STEWART et al AT HOFSTRA: HAS ACADEMIA COMPLETELY TAKEN LEAVE OF ITS SENSES? (part 2)
AHMADINEJAD AT COLUMBIA & LYNNE STEWART et al AT HOFSTRA: HAS ACADEMIA COMPLETELY TAKEN LEAVE OF ITS SENSES?
By
Ken Eliasberg
Picking up where we left off last week with what happened at Columbia where a seemingly mild mannered genocidal maniac bested the best that Columbia has to offer (a scary thought to be sure, i.e. that this is the best that one of our most respected bastions of higher learning has to offer), one is still left with the knawing questions of why was this necessary and whose cause did it advance. The obvious answers are that (1) this visitation was neither necessary nor desirable, and (2) even more obviously, the only cause advanced by this academic charade was that of the Iranian dictator’s (who emerged looking both more reasonable and more intelligent than his interrogators). In addition, the effort proved once again that (1) there is no correlation between intelligence and common sense, and (2) that today, an education in our institutions of higher learning may impart information but certainly not wisdom.
And what was even more surprising to me was how unprepared Columbia was to deal with Ahmadinejad after they had clearly been put on notice that this man, while crazy, was anything but stupid. There were a number of instances from which Columbia could have derived this knowledge, but the clearest one was his interview by Mike Wallace in August of last year, on which I reported in this paper (see my column of 8/24/06, entitled Mike Wallace Proves That There Is, Indeed, No Fool Like An Old Fool). As indicated by the column’s title, Ahmadinejad did indeed make Wallace look foolish, while acquitting himself quite well. So Columbia knew, or should have known, that even if they felt the need to go through with this farsical demonstration of free speech, that they had best prepare for such an encounter. Unfortunately, Bollinger and Coatsworth (particularly Coatsworth) almost made Wallace look intelligent.
While Ahmadinejad was rebuking Bollinger for his lack of manners, across town another institution of higher (how high one can only wonder) learning was preparing to provide a demonstration on the finer points of legal ethics by putting on a panel of left-wing anti-American attorneys who would defend anyone who would attack America and/or what it represents (i.e. freedom, democracy, justice—you know, good stuff like that). Hofstra University’s Law School, located on Long Island, was putting together a panel discussion on some of the finer points of legal ethics (an admittedly murky area in which most attorneys display very little interest, and, judging from the place lawyers currently hold in the eyes of the public, very little concern). The topic of this program was Lawyering on the Edge: Unpopular Clients, Difficult Cases, and Zealous Advocates, and the keynote speaker was Lynne Stewart, convicted felon, disbarred attorney, and, in my opinion, a traitor. Some of you may recall her most famous case—the one leading to her conviction and disbarment. She represented the blind Sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman, who was the architect of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center (which resulted in the death of 6 people and injured around 1,000 others). So far so good, even people as reprehensible as the Sheik are entitled to representation. However, the good Mrs. Stewart was not satisfied with just representing the Sheik; she was found guilty of passing along information to the Sheik’s compatriots to further their cause of destroying America. What a gal! The panel was fleshed out with other attorneys who seem to relish representing clients whose principal occupation seems to be hating America.
Now tell me, why is it necessary to provide these people with a platform? Can you not just tell your students about these cases? Possibly you can enhance your lecture with a visual aid, e.g. a movie? To demonstrate the intricacies of first degree murder, you would not stage one for the benefit of your students, would you? The brochure announcing this conference described Mrs. Stewart as a high profile radical and human rights attorney, neglecting to mention her conviction and disbarment (oh well, why sweat the small stuff?). On being informed of this enterprising “ethical” endeavor, James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal’s