Columbia Univ = Hyprocracy

[NIKV69]

I've talked to about 20 people who are planning protests. You're wrong.

Planning protests means nothing. It's whether they disrupt(or are allowed) to disrupt him when he speaks. You will see that this is not the case.

The protests that occurred with Gilchrist were intensely organized by a couple specific student groups, they weren't organized by the university, which is what you seemed to imply, therefore the university isn't being hypocritical

So your telling me that the university knew nothing? Or that campus police just sat there and did nothing why? Come on, don't be naive. The University could have handled that situation much better if they wanted.

Let's stop being paranoid. Being liberal doesn't mean anti-American, being socialist doesn't mean anti-American, being anti-war doesn't mean anti-American. Everyone's perception of anti-American is different and "anti-American" is just such a vague phrase anyway that, in my opinion, using it just shows that you have no real argument.
The protests that occurred with Gilchrist were intensely organized by a couple specific student groups, they weren't organized by the university, which is what you seemed to imply, therefore the university isn't being hypocritical. And anyway, we can't judge the situation before Ahmadinejad even makes his appearance, you're comparing the actions that occurred during Gilcrhist's speech with actions that haven't occurred yet.

This has nothing to do with being anti-american. It has to do with not wanting to hear the other side. Which is the point you missed which is why you can't understand. This has nothing to do with war or anything like that. It's that the school wants their beliefs to be the only ones heard and doesn't want someone like Gilchrist to speak. Which is why they acted the way they did and why nothing was done to stop it once it started.

nothingDo you not see a problem with Columbia inviting a terrorist who repeatedly advocates "Death to America", who claims the Holocaust is a myth and who funds terrorist groups, to come speak at their school, all the while disallowing an ROTC detachment, who's produced such graduates such as Eisenhower and whose campus is littered with statues and paintings of historic military men, to be "re-stood-up"?

I am a believer in free speech so even though I think this man is dispicable I will still let him talk and not censor him.

I think people are wasting too much time and energy over this. As GothamSpotter already pointed out, Ahmadinejad is one of today's most important newsmakers and it would be a huge loss to pass up an opertunity to hear him speak. So either you can listen to the speech and try to understand this guy better (as I intend to do) OR you should just ignore it completely. I don't understand why people are going to go out there to protest his speech - he already KNOWS that he is extremely unpopular in the Western World and he KNOWS that his visit to the US comes with much opposition. What are protests going to show him that he doesn't already know? On the other hand, WE don't know exactly what this guy is all about, so to those opposed - please don't muck up this unique opertunity for those of us who want to gain something out of his visit. It's that simple.

Many here are missing my point. I am not against him coming. All I am saying is that if you are going to attempt to hide behind free speech then let EVERYONE have it. Free speech means that all are allowed to say what they want. With no fear of attack. Something Gilchrist didn't have and something I feel this man will. We will see.

[NcSchu]

The university probably knew about the protests, but they had no right to stop the protests because it's free speech; I doubt they knew that there would be pseudo-rioting, it seems like that was more "of the moment" as rioting usually is. The campus police are independent of the university and it's their fault for not stopping the riot (not the protest). Again, this paranoia that everyone, including now the Campus police, was against Gilchrist is simply ridiculous. Once things were set in motion it was difficult to stop.

On the Anti-America business, I was responding to Phil's post about being Anti-American, totally separate from this discussion.

[PhilDernerJr]

Columbia does have a right to stop protests on their own property.

[adam613]

Columbia does have a right to stop protests on their own property.

A right? Yes. But these are absolutely different situations with regard to security. With Gilchrist, the university absolutely knew there was going to be protesting. There were probably posters all over campus, and there's a protest any time someone big (liberal or conservative or otherwise) comes to speak. It's rare that a protest gets out of hand, but campus security was in a no-win situation. If they did nothing (which they did), they'd get skewered for doing nothing (which they did). If they did something, they'd get skewered for overreacting and suppressing free speech, by many of the same media outlets who skewered them for doing nothing. Remember, it was the (hypocritical) students suppressing Gilchrist's free speech; the university didn't suppress anyone, even though it probably should have.

Ahmadinejad coming to speak is different. This isn't some random racist most people on campus had never heard of before he was scheduled to speak; this racist is a "head" of "state". And it's an entire FORUM of world leaders who are in town. You'd be an idiot to think campus security is going to be calling the shots on this protest; I'm not sure who is calling the shots, but I'd be willing to bet it's the Secret Service. Which allows the university to neatly dodge the free speech issue if a riot does in fact start. Unless the Secret Service WANTS him to be attacked, which is probably wishful thinking.

(In case anyone is wondering why I know so much about how Columbia does things, I do have a degree from there. hiss srq's description of a "liberal ****hole" is not far off-base. But the conclusions being drawn from that in this thread are rather off-base.

I spent my protesting effort on much less controversial issues, like the university's previously horrid Sexual Misconduct Policy. And I was a member of both the Democrat and Republican student organizations; they're both pretty hypocritical where free speech is concerned. Most of the protests then were about Israel, but they lost a lot of credibility when people started to realize that they hated Jews, rather than Israel.)

[hiss srq]

Though I still do not agree that this event should be taking place I must say that I am indeed impressed and slightly shocked at the statements Bollinger made in his opening for the event. I honestly expected to see a massive liberal fluffing going on.

[Midnight Mike]

I do not see a problem with having the President of Iran speaking at the College, as long as he is given tough questions. I am getting tired of seeing these fluff interviews him on the local Networks.......

[adam613]

“Today I feel all the weight of the modern civilized world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for,” Mr. Bollinger told Mr. Ahmadinejad. “I only wish I could do better.”

The auditorium erupted in thunderous applause.

(Mr. Bollinger is Lee Bollinger, the president of Columbia University.)

[NcSchu]

Bollinger asked some really hardcore questions, and he pressured Ahmadinejad to answer them, unfortunately it seems he avoided a lot of them. They're doing a question and answer period as I type, he avoided a question about Israel. I found this link to be very thorough, and it's constantly being updated by the reporter on the scene.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/ ... yt&emc=rss

[Matt Molnar]

I was reading that too, Nick.

Quote of the day, when asked about Iran's policy of executing homosexuals: "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country. We don't have that in our country. In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon, I do not know who has told you that we have it."

[NIKV69]

Almost as funny as "Do some more research into what happened in Germany in the 40's" Let's see we have, first hand accounts, photos, video and we dug up the effing graves filled with people. What is this person smoking? I tell you I find this to be the biggest waste of time in letting this man speak. Nothing was accomplished and he danced around every question that was based on fact. Someone on FOX said he felt Columbia just did this to gain notoriety for themselves and I have to tell you I think it's true. This was sad. Free speech is great but when you are going to hide behind comments you already made and make new ones that make little or no sense what's the point?

[adam613]

Of course Columbia was doing it for their own notoriety. As was Ahmadinejad; this was a big publicity stunt for pretty much everyone involved.

Ahmadinejad's backtracking and general evasiveness should be a good reminder of what happens when people who have no concept of free speech are given free speech.

[Idlewild]

I have no problem with the way Colombia handled the Ahmadinejad q&a. Quite frankly the participants did a better job interviewing him than most of the news "journalists" who ***** foot around such controversial questions. Whether it's Limbaugh, Hannity, Brokaw, Rather, Sawyer even Oprah, all you see and hear is politeness from these buffoons when push comes to shove and they interview the people they are critical of. Good for Colombia.

[Nycfly75]

Of course Columbia was doing it for their own notoriety.

Yup, theyve been losing ground to my alma mater downtown for years now. We don't need to pull stunts like Columbia did to get attention.

[Tom_Turner]

This is the backdrop Ahmadinejad spoke in front of at a recent Islamic Conference..."World without Zion". Notice the US and Judiasm orbs broken or being broken.



Now of course it can all be symbolic of this or that, [meant to be political in nature rather than literal] but clearly he wants to push the envelope, but pictures do sometimes speak louder than words. Can anyone imagine Bush speaking in front of backdrop of comparable provocation?

Tom

[jran225]

I was reading that too, Nick.

Quote of the day, when asked about Iran's policy of executing homosexuals: "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country. We don't have that in our country. In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon, I do not know who has told you that we have it."

Iran is an Islamic State and the rules of Islam prohibit homosexuality. What's so wrong or funny about his answer aside from that fact that we don't agree with it?

Greetz,
-Omario