Predictably, the boys at Armavirumque are flustered by Columbia University's decision to host Iranian premier Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday. James Panero objects that the Secret Service should provide security for Ahmadinejad, despite the fact that this is entirely routine for any visiting dignitary of his stature. Roger Kimball gets down to brass tacks:
What can one say? That [Columbia University] President Bollinger traduces the idea of "a community dedicated to learning and scholarship"? Yes. That he elides the notion of free speech and the more limited privilege of academic freedom? Yes again. That his incontinent demand that his university provide a forum for all ideas, no matter how toxic, erodes freedom by making it vulnerable to fanaticism? A third time Yes.Frankly, Ahmadinejad's visit strikes me as an embarrassment for everyone involved. War hawks like Kimball would have us believe that Ahmadinejad's mere presence before a podium would transmit ethnosectarian conflict throughout a pliant audience, or something, but in fact Ahmadinejad was ably laughed down by a lecture hall's worth of college students in response to his claim that there are no homosexual people in Iran. Is Ahmadinejad ridiculous? A resounding Yes. Is Roger Kimball ridiculous? Why, Yes, him too.
On the other hand, Columbia University had no compelling reason to invite Ahmadinejad to speak in the first place. Because Ahmadinejad is ridiculous—he is not a significant political actor within Iran. Perhaps Bollinger et al. realized the utility of giving Ahmadinejad a major stage, i.e., that he'd say something foolish, as he is prone to do, and that might diminish political pressure at home that we face an imminent threat in Iran. That's a very instrumental view of the academy and one I doubt that Bollinger et al. endorses, but I'm having a hard time understanding why Columbia would make a fuss over Ahmadinejad given the sheer number of people in the world who are more important. And even that liberal-instrumental view makes little sense, as Ahmadinejad no more runs his country than George W. Bush runs ours, so whether he looks fierce or foolish in the eyes of Americans has little bearing on whether Dick Cheney gets his war.
At the very least, yesterday's debate wasn't a stunt compounded by a stunt. Had Ahmadinejad visited Ground Zero and laid his wreath, or whatever, I'm sure I would have vomited. Whatever Ahmadinejad is, he is not our ally, and he does not mourn our losses. I disagree with the decision to prevent Ahmadinejad to visit the site, and it makes me feel like a hypocrite to say that I'm nevertheless pleased that he didn't. I'm surprised that he wasn't allowed to, in fact, since scarce little else would provoke war hawks so much as a photograph of the great enemy "desecrating" the site of September 11; and the Bush administration has never proven squeamish about using September 11 for political ends when the opportunity arises.
Posted by Kriston at September 25, 2007 11:15 AM"given the sheer number of people in the world who are more important":
There are no other countries which the US is reasonably likely to carry out an airborne first strike on in the next, oh, twelve hours or so. And, while Ahmadinejad does not possess tremendous power in the Iranian system of government, he is the one they send to UN meetings; and there would likely have been some problems with inviting Supreme Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to speak at Columbia.
Posted by: brooksfoe at September 25, 2007 1:41 PMIt's not a rude comment—it's much appreciated. I don't think heads of states are in a position to do much anything "sincerely"—there's a measure of political calculation behind even innocuous actions. But when, say, the president of France lays a wreath for 9/11 we have reason to believe that whatever instrumental or political value he receives in his home state for staging such an act is something that we wouldn't find disrespectful. But the ruling class in Iran is not sympathetic to our nation or our traumas. How would the photo-op operate in Iran? Very possibly in a demeaning or condescending way, regardless of how contrite Ahmadinejad himself is.
Posted by: Kriston at September 26, 2007 11:09 AMThe invitation was issued by the graduate School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), not the CU president's office. SIPA constantly hosts foreign officials and activists who come and give talks. Then-SIPA dean Anderson invited Ahmadinejad because almost everyone gets invited. Within SIPA this invitation isn't unusual. And normally if the speaker is an immoral ass he or she will be challenged by students and teachers alike.
Posted by: b at September 27, 2007 8:04 AMSo, no one agrees with me that Ahmadinejad isn't an edifying voice vis-a-vis US conflict with Iran and there's more to gain from bringing in someone who is? Was this event good for anything for YouTube jokes? I listened to the thing over MP3 and learned nothing. May I note, for argument's sake, that I'd have the same academic-y objection to inviting President Bush to speak about the US conflict with Iran?
Posted by: Kriston at September 27, 2007 2:00 PM