Here's the link to an article about Iran's President Ahmadinejad speech he delivered at Columbia University on Monday, September 24th.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/24/us.iran/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
Do you think Ahmadinejad should have been denied the opportunity to address students at a prestigious American institution? Do you think it was a good idea to have him here? What do you think about the content of his speech?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
53 comments:
In reaction to the article, "Ahmadinejad at Columbia University", I have a couple of different opinions on the matter. First of all, I think in normal peace time for the United States, it would be a feasible option to have him speak at a prestigious American University. Although we may not agree with many of the actions of Iran, it is necessary for us to get an understanding of how other countries different than us operate. I feel, however, that given the current situation we have in Iraq and the Middle East, it was a horrible idea to have a leader from Iran speak at this time. With all of the hostile tensions between Iran and the United States right now, Ahmadinejad should have have been allowed to speak. Certain claims the Iranian president made were also naive and uneducated. The false claim that there are no gay people in Iran is one of the most unintelligent statements that could come out of a person's mouth. The other fact that lack of evidence from both sides of the Holocaust is also not a well thought statement. Many German records were destroyed in an effort to cover up the events and atrocities of the Nazis in World War II. The claim by Ahmadinejad that the Holocaust was in any way a myth is also an uneducated and prejudiced comment.
--Mike Poznansky
Columbia University’s decision to invite Ahmadinejad was a very bold decision to say the least. They invited mahmoud ahmadinejad to simply exchange “ideas”. I think that the President of Columbia University intentionally wanted to stir up this sort of uproar to have more people to truly grasp and identify the situation of what is going on in the middle east. This man is a cruel dictator and no one better than himself can prove this. He has been quoted saying that “Israel must be wiped off the map” and also ignorantly said that the Holocaust was just a “fabricated legend”. Many people did not want him to come to Columbia U and were trying to exercise their civil disobedience tactics. Personally I could have gone either way but I’d say I wanted him to come because I was interested with what he had to say although I knew in a way that he wouldn’t answer that many questions straight forward and would dodge around them with posing other questions to the original question. The content of his statements that there were no homosexuals, denying the execution of people, and that they don’t aid terrorists left me thinking that these statements were hard to believe. He is an enemy of the United States right now with all of the tension with the Middle East and many people think that it is wrong to allow him to speak to our students and civilians in our country. I think that it was good to hear their side because I’d like to know there view point and hear the other side of the story whether or not it is just or unjust.
-James Squillante
I think inviting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was a poorly organized idea. I can understand why the administration may have considered inviting him to speak, but I think giving him a platform caused more harm than good. With the position the United States is in right now and the tension we are facing with countries such as Iran, inviting their president to speak will only produce negative outcomes and reactions. On top of that alone, the statements that he made were unbelievable and inaccurate. Claiming that Iran is home to no homosexuals shows complete unintelligence. Referring to the Holocaust as an event that never happened is a topic he has no right talking about. It seems to me that he intentionally talked about topics that would start debate and anger. There were numerous protests in New York City because they were against the President be given a platform, knowing his background opinions. I don't think he should be allowed to visit Ground Zero either. He ridiculed the United States and "paying his respect" is unnecessary. Although he claims that, "We'll give you a platform... We'll listen to you, speak to you," if anyone at Columbia visited his country, I think Ahmadinejad should not have been given a platform to speak on.
-Katy Johnson
I feel that Columbia made a great decision in inviting Ahmadinejad to speak. By welcoming the infamous leader and giving him a chance to speak, Columbia did America as a whole a service. First, by welcoming someone who openly expresses hate toward America and its ideals, the U.S. itself looks open and comfortable rather than paranoid. Second, Columbia provided a platform on which Ahmadinejad was able to put his foot in his mouth. Even the president of Columbia described him as “astonishingly uneducated”. Ahmadinejad lost total credibility by claiming that there were no homosexuals in Iran. He dug his own grave when he started talking about the holocaust. His speech revealed his true ignorance and he labeled himself as a fanatic. I think it was great move on Columbia’s part to provide Ahmadinejad the opportunity to make an ass of himself.
John Dalo
I don't think that it was a bad idea to have Ahmadinejad speak at Columbia, at least in theory. I'm guessing that when they invited him, they didn't know the controversial topics that he would bring up. I think that because of all the tension between the U.S. and the Middle East, it is better for us to be receptive to their views, and possibly get the other side of the story, so to speak. It keeps America from looking overly paranoid or defensive toward that part of the world. Theoretically, such occasions COULD promote international relations between the regions, although it doesn't seem to have worked out that way in this case. The content of his speech was not encouraging, and I do agree with the above poster that he ended up making a fool of himself. But some good that has come out of his speech is that America has been shown to be somewhat receptive, and there are true problems (not just based on misconceptions) that could arise from the views of the Middle Eastern region, or at least their leaders.
-Katie Head
Columbia's decision to have Ahmadinejad speak was very surprising, but not necessarily a bad idea. Honestly I feel as if giving him the forum and opportunity to speak at such a prestigious university, makes the U.S. look to the world as being a strong country, showing its democratic ideals. As for the Ahmadinejad's speech, he made himself look ignorant and stubborn, as he talked about how there were no homosexuals in Iran and how he believes the Holocaust never happened, while continuing to call for the destruction of the state of Israel. I would have to say that in the end, I feel as if the forum given to Ahmadinejad was good as it shows that the ideas and perspectives of some Middle Eastern leaders need to be put into question more often throughout the world.
- Eric Goodman
I think that Columbia was right in their decision to allow Ahmadinejad to speak at their school. Ivy league schools have a history of being the breeding ground for political discussion, and for allowing differing opinions to be heard. Although Ahmadinejad's opinions are obviously grossly misguided and somewhat disturbing, good things may come of this. As some others in the class have already said, his speech just made him look worse in the eyes of the world. If he continues to bring such negative press to Iran through his words then maybe their government will discontinue their support of him in the face of a disapproving international community. I think it also reflects positively on the United States. We pride ourselves (unlike Iran) on being a nation in which opinions can be expressed openly without the fear of persecution from the government. I feel that had we denied him the right to speak, we would have been going against the values which we hold dear.
Mike Werch
When I first heard about the outrage that president Ahmadinejad caused at Columbia University on the news, I believed that he should not have been invited to speak publicly in the United States. I felt that since everyone disagreed with him, that his speech was nothing but a waste of time and only served as additional fuel for the fire between the US and Iran. Even though the accusations and protests in his speech were absurd, it would look bad for the US if we didn't allow him to speak. After all, this is a nation based on freedom.. and even though Amadinejad is not a citizen, denying him the right to speak would not be too good in my opinion. I'm not sure what the purpose of Ahmadinejads speech was, but if he was only trying to stir emotions up and insult the American people, he was successful. Saying that there were no gays in Iran or that the Holocaust never existed were pointless aggravating comments. Ahmadinejad's speech pointed out his problems with the US, but at the same time, angered Americans across the nation.
- Chun (Ben) Choi
I find no issue in allowing the Iranian President to speak. I would like to know what exactly were the intentions of Columbia U. in bringing him to the university. I also do not see how the reaction would change if the venue were different. I say this in response to Sarah referring to Columbia as a "prestigious" institution. While maybe a moot point, if he had been invited to UDEL , I'm sure there would still be controversy regarding his invitation. Sorry, just a little rant there.
I for one also believe that it was a great idea to have him speak. Iran is in the news nearly everyday. I find it simply awesome that students were able to hear him speak, regardless if what they heard was simply a bunch of nonsense. I mean, don't we hear the same nonsense coming from Bush every time he takes the podium. I seem to recall something about "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq??? Send Bush to speak at any institution in Iran, I'm sure he would receive the same criticism as well.
-Tanner Herpst
I believe that Ahmadinejad should not have spoken at Columbia University. However, since this is America, he has every right to speak wherever he chooses about whatever he chooses. I do feel that his speech only confirmed all the things America dislikes about Iran. He defended his questioning of the existence of the Holocaust and basically indirectly expressed his disdain for Israel and Jewish culture. He made a mockery of homosexuals in an extremely liberal city, which clearly did not go over well. Though it appeared that his intention was to make Iran more credible and to be seen in a better light to Americans, it completely backfired and Iran only looks worse. Columbia's choice of Ahmadinejad was probably a bad idea as it will only cause more American dislike for Iran whose president clearly does not have the same ideas that America as a free country has. While many may have been able to tolerate Iran and its different ideas before Ahmadinejad's speech, those same people may have changed their minds as a result. Not only does the Iranian president have different ideas than the United States, but he makes a mockery of our nation as a whole. Though America as a whole does not usually agree on many issues, one thing we do agree on is that we all appreciate and cherish our freedom. When our freedom is threatened or made fun of, our country as a whole will have a reaction. By Ahmadinejad making the speech he did, he may only have exacerbated an already huge problem with the United States.
The above response was by Jessica Jackman.
Sorry.
I think that Columbia’s invitation to Ahmadinejad the president of Iran to speak was a very daring one. Although it is a great expression of the freedom of speech and acceptance that exists in such educational institutes in the United States, I think that our given situation in Iraq and the Middle East proves the decision to be a little too daring. There is a large amount of tension between the United States and Iran right now and Ahmadinejad’s speech did nothing to help the problem. I think Mr. Bollinger was well stated when he said “it was “well documented” that Iran was a state sponsor of terrorism, accused Iran of fighting a proxy war against the United States in Iraq and questioned why Iran has refused “to adhere to the international standards” of disclosure for its nuclear program. Although Ahmadinejad addressed this statement he was dodging many of the questions that were being asked. Overall, I think that his speech at Columbia caused a lot of unrest among the American people that was unnecessary and did nothing but create more anger.
-Alison Burke
Although no one in America really would say they LIKE Ahmadinejad, I am definitley on the side that believes he should have been allowed to speak at the university. Why, you might ask. The problem with the Ahmadinejad is that no one in the United States truely knows what he's thinking. The bare truth of the matter is that everyone has their views on what Iran is doing with such issues as nuclear weapons and other diplomatic issues. Are they bluffing? Who knows to be honest. One way to help formulate our ideas, to learn more from Ahmadinejad would be to listen to him. You won't learn anything from him if he doesn't speak, and learning from him is something we need to do. Not even neccesarily just to learn about nuclear weapons, but to help us understand how to deaal with him. MAny leaders are known to drop hints in speeches about things they would like done, or "I would talk to this country if....." It does The United States no good to censor this man, he can talk publicly all he wants, but when it's directed at us, we should more than listen.
Christopher Fromme
In my opinion it was different (if not nice) to hear the opposite side of this issue put spin on it the other way. Maybe between him and Bush we can come to some sort of middle-ground...preferrably, reality.
-Nick Sarlo
“The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”
-John Stuart Mill
I for one cannot comprehend the outcry against letting Ahmadinejad speak. Isnt there free speech in America? Why would we limit someone from speaking just because in most of our views their ideas are crazy. Ahmadinejad said that there are no gay people in Iran. Clearly this is not a truth. This is a statement that deserves to be laughed at first, and questioned second. I personally cannot let myself believe that Ahmadinejad really thinks this is a true statement. If however, when Ahmadinejad says there are no gay people in Iran he thinks he is actually correct, then our problems exist on a whole different level. Honestly though, it really does not matter what Ahmadinejad actually said. The fact that people were against giving a political leader the right to free speach does not make any sense. Just because someones views dont fit into an objective reality does not mean they should not express those views.
As someone said today in class, the president of Iran has no real power. The real leader of Iran is a supreme religious commander.
-Ryan Davenport
I do not think that anyone had the ability to prevent the Iranian president from speaking, so I do not see that anything could have been done about it anyway. That is not to say however, that I think it was right that he was asked, or that he accepted. I think it was a relatively tactless move on the university's (as well as the Iranian president's) side, but nobody had any grounds for stopping him. It was a university after all, not an elementary school, where his ideas could have been considered potentially harmful. Also, to have denied him this opportunity (when asked to come) would have been akin to saying that freedom of speech is not a human right, but applies only to people of whom Americans (as a whole) approve. This would have been a serious and blatant violation of many of the beliefs on which the United States was built.
C. Faith Woodworth
It should not be a question whether it was a good idea or not to have Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at Columbia University. It is ridiculous that we would invite someone who is such a disgrace to our country to speak to our citizens. I don't think it was a good idea to have him speak because nothing was accomplished other than giving him the oppurtunity to tell lies. He openly denies the holocaust and says he cannot believe this happened until he finds reliable evidence. (Hello, Ahmadinejad, it's everywhere).
Nothing was achieved by inviting him here to speak and I think it was a poorly unorganized event; such a man does not deserve a platform to speak especially with the position the United States is in now.
-Kelley Thompson
It is completely ridiculous and absurd for Columbia to give the platform for President Achmenijad. Giving him the right to speak at Columbia demonstrates an amount of respect that is simply not earned. Many people like to argue that it is beneficial for Americans to hear many alternative views and there is some truth in this although this is a limited principle rather than a universal idea. Having Achmenijad speak at Columbia to give his political opinion is akin to having Tom Cruise lecture at the American Psychiatric Association on the dangers of prescription drugs for mental illnesses. To put it another way, the platform should only be given to people who have something legitimate to contribute to the conversation. There’s no point refuting crackpots like Achmenijad; people like him should simply be laughed at. Ultimately, the President of Iran did this to himself in a limited degree when he asserted that there were no homosexuals in Iran. More importantly, if Columbia’s goal is to have a knowledgeable, well educated Iranian speak about politics in Iran, there are many others that are well informed and worth listening to. For example, they could have requested Amir Taheri, Mina Ahadi, Amil Imani or Azar Nafsi to speak at their university.
--Daniel Greenbaum
I have several thoughts on Ahmadinejad's speech. In concept his visit to the United States was meant to be informative. It presented a perfectly good platform for Americans to come to understand Iran's policies better. Instead the media had a field day and people protested most likely because of Ahamdinejad's view on the holocaust. I feel that specifically the media is trying to create something that isnt there and that is Iranian hostility for the U.S. Ahmadinejad did not express any discontent with the United States and has been true to his word. As far as I'm concerned there is no reason we should not believe him. Why fault a man that is trying to better his country with nuclear capabilities? Many seem to concentrate on his denial of the holocaust. There is no doubt that this is a blatant disregard for the facts but Iran was not directly involved in the holocaust. Also the hands of the United States are not clean when it comes to committing war attrocities. Mocking the Iranian ruler such as the President of Columbia and much of the media has only makes the U.S. look like bullies.
---Ryan Shaw
I believe that the Iranian president should have been denied the right to speak at Columbia University. He is the president of a country that currently funds terrorism. They give harsh punishment for dissent in their country and they deny women many of the rights that they should be allowed. These ideals are completely against the beliefs of the United States. Even though speech is free in this country, the president that provides weapons to a country that we are at war with should not be given a platform to talk about anti-Christian and anti-American ideals. Even in front of the entire world at the United Nations General Assembly, he had the nerve to call Israel an "illegal Zionist regime". He shouldn't even be allowed in the country.
-Andrew Deinert
My thoughts are similiar to Daniel's. I agree with the freedom of speech view some have discussed above and also Columbia's right to invite Ahmadinejad but question whether it was a wise choice. Someone who threatens to wipe Israel off the map and denies the holocaust occurred seems in my opinion to lack the legitimacy to be given such a prestigious invitation.
I also wonder whether his denial that gays exist in Iran was a crazy belief or a subtle confirmation of Iran's policy of executing gays.
Charles (C.J.) Augustine
Whether or not President Ahmadinejad spoke at a US institution or if he was doing it in Iran does not make a big difference. He's been saying the same things, more or less, for a while now. But the fact that he says it while in America and suddenly its a huge deal, doesn't make sense. What he talked about gave a good sense of his views and he was just trying to get a rise out of the audience.
--Kristian Quiroz
I'm inclined to agree with Kristian. Ahmadinejad has been saying these stupid things for years. I think there might be more uproar if Columbia denied him the right to speak. I remember a few years ago, Senator McCain came and spoke to Columbia (I think he was actually a graduation speaker), and how much of an uproar that caused. He had been spouting off about how Americans should support the war, so on and so forth. This was, of course, at one of the most liberal colleges of the nation. Of course the man got booed at and some graduates even got up and left their own commencement. My friend goes to Columbia and she was just dumbfounded as to why the administration would have a Republican Senator speak, but I think the University wanted to have someone recognizable, someone influential, and someone who could stir up the campus and community. Ahmadinejad is much more extremist that McCain, but it seems like the reactions to the two men were very similar. I think perhaps the University just wanted to stir things up; get their students aware of what's going on. If Ahmadinejad came to UD (yeah right) I would go see him, just to hear him spout off his idiotic ideas.
I feel that, even though people can be stupid and most believe whatever they hear from scholars and well-positioned people, Ahmadinejad's speech couldn't have convinced many people of anything. It seems pretty unanimous on the way that the news articles are written, and the way people have responded in this blog, and in the real world, that he's not really believed to be credible on any of his "facts." Obviously, he doesn't know definitively that there are no gay Iranians, and he couldn't ever prove it. His argument about the Holocaust? Can he prove that it didn't happen any more than the acclaimed ones who couldn't prove it DID? No.
So, I feel that he shouldn't have been denied his chance to speak. Our country *is* founded on tolerance and allowing people to have opinions, and to share them freely. It seems that he's not convincing anyone anyway.
I think that it was very valid for Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia University. I am actually quite surprised at the amount of responses saying that he should not even have been in the states. I believe that because of America's history, and the fact that we are based on free speech we should be open to hearing other world views. even if we strongly disagree with what is being said I think we should look at such a talk as a way to see how others view the world. It is educational and eye opening. And because of such I feel that it was perfectly acceptable for Ahmadinejad to have addressed Columbia.
-- bethany kravitz
I feel as though having Ahmadinejad speak at Columbia University was finally the right step towards becoming more knowledgeable about the Middle East. While I do not agree with mostly anything that Ahmadinejad stated, something did however make me think... "We oppose the way the U.S. government tries to manage the world. ... We propose more humane methods of establishing peace," -Ahmadinejad. He has a point. When did our way become the right way? We are trying to impose the idea of the "american dream" on people in the middle east- People who are different than us and have different beliefs. If we ever wish to gain peace, we must first gain understanding. Therefore, it is most vital that we hear what other leaders are saying...even if we don't agree with them.
-Heather Starner
I feel there is nothing wrong with Columbia University allowing Ahmadinejad to come and speak. There really is no debate over whether it is ok. A university is allowed to host anyone it feels like, regardless of their political standing. I do not see a negative outcome from this. Any good speaker should cause debate. Ahmadenijad obviously is not the best speaker, but his authority and stature meant alot coming from Iran. That alone causes debate and controversy. So, his appearance was good in that it fostered discussion. Most of points were worthless anyway when displayed in that fashion at a liberal minded American school. His radicalness only made things worse for him and surely only swayed more people that did not know of him before to dislike him. Who are we to stop someone from giving a speech whether it be good, bad, or just plain stupid and ignorant.
Eric Mortensen-Nemore
I think allowing Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia University was actually a good thing. First, I agree with many of the others who have posted saying that it would have been more of a problem if he wasn't allowed to speak. Also, everyone has the freedom of speech here, so denying Ahmadinejad the right to address the University audience would certainly not have gone over well with the Iranian leader. Furthermore, as Heather mentioned, giving him the chance to speak gives us the chance to further our understanding of what the Middle Eastern mindset is (toward America and our actions). With so much of our foreign policy revolving around that region, currently, it is important to understand what the common opinion of America is.
--Ashley Mortimer
I don’t think that Ahmedinejad should have been allowed to speak at Columbia Univeristy. I watched his speech at Columbia and have also seen other interviews of his, on TV. He will not answer any tough questions, instead he just talks his way around them. He attempts to deceive the American public with good sounding answers. I fear that someone without knowledge of him might not be able to see through his act. Ahmandinejad says that Iran wants friendship with the American, this sound amicable. However, he fails to point out that his government leads “Death to America” chants with morning prayers. He says he wants peace in Iraq, even though there is substantial evidence that Iran is arming Shiite militias. My fears about having Ahmadinejad speak at Columbia were realized when I heard students cheering for him.
Britt Chalmers
I watched his speech at Columbia on C-SPAN.
Columbia University most likely feels that they are being progressive or wise by inviting the president of Iran to speak at their school. However, they were neither, and irresponsibly gave a platform to one of the most dangerous and unstable leaders in the world. This is a person who calls for more research into the Holocaust, one of the most well documented events of history. He openly tortures and kills homosexuals and deprives women of basic human rights. He takes American and international scholars or anyone else who openly criticizes hum and puts them into the inhumane Evin Prison.
The excuse given by Columbia was that by allowing the president of Iran to speak, we would be getting a clearer picture of the enemy. This is a terrible explanation. The Iranian president said absolutely nothing new in his talks at Columbia. He managed to dodge and answer questions with more questions. He knew his audience and what they did not want to hear. We knew everything he managed to say, and there was certainly no need to allow him to preach in front of 18-22 year old American college students.
The president of Columbia did not only do himself a gigantic disservice, but America as a nation, by ridiculing Ahmadinejad to his face. Ahmadinejad will (and has) come out looking like the victim. Internationally, no one will really look at what he said, but rather how he was treated. America will be portrayed as the disrespectful bully and Ahmadinejad as the victim of American arrogance.
-Gabe DiPietro
After reading the article about Mr.Ahmadinejad, i respect his ability to speak to an audience but disagree strongly with his opinion. Just the fact that he believes the holocaust never happened is just completely idiotic. Then what happened to millions of people? Did they all just die and cover it up in a huge conspiracy? I guess he knows something we dont. I completely agree with the decision to not let him see ground zero. For all we know he would just question whether 9/11 actually happened. This man just says whatever answer will not get him in trouble with the international community, denying nuclear weapons development. He knows if he wants more respect thats how he will get it. When he said that he doesnt need US help, i hope that the next time he needs help he can eat a big piece of humble pie.
-Matt Swank
I think it was a good idea to have Ahmadinejad speak at Columbia University. Having the President of Iran express his ludicrous beliefs and opinions openly only made the general American public more aware and wary of the tensions in the Middle East. Furthermore, I think that Ahmadinejad showed the students of Columbia just how volatile the situation is bettween Iran and the United States. People now can see what the U.S government has to put up with. The president of Iran is crazy in thinking that the Holocause never occured. He certainly is not living in reality when he says things like there are no homosexuals in Iran. Of course he wouldn't know if there were any homosexuals, since all of them would be to terrified to openly admit it. I'm glad he was not allowed to visit ground zero. For him to go there would be a slap in the face to all the victims of 911, especially since he allows terrorists to hide out in his country. The students of Columbia are not nieve enough to believe the lies told by this dictator. Ahmadinehad speaking to the students of Columbia only reinforced the fact that the President of Iran is extremely volatile and deranged.
Roopa Sabesan
Colombia should have given Ahmadinejad a platform to spread his hateful rhetoric. Some people have argued that not allowing him to speak would have gone against America principals of free speech. I disagree. Columbia went out of its way to invite him to speak. Had they not, no one would have said "Why did America censor him?" Why would anyone expect that he be invited to speak? Ahmedinejad should have just been left to come here as quietly as possible and leave. Instead, Columbia gave him legitimacy by giving him a platform for his propaganda. Even more of a shame is that the audience cheered for him.
Josh Shannon
Some of the things that Ahmadinejad said at Columbia University were completely ridiculous and hateful. But he is not really to blame. He was asked to speak at Columbia University . He is not going to censor himself to seem like a better person in America. He is speaking his mind and that is what America is all about, Free Speech. What he said about Holocaust and gay Iranians may not be true, but those are his beliefs. I believe in most aspects of free speech, but times like this and when the Phelps Family protests the funerals of soldiers are really times that I wish America could prevent.
-Eric Boruta
I do not understand why Ahmadinejad would included comments such as, "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals, like in your country." This is not going to win anyone over, to look at the Iranian side of the story. The comment just seems like a comparison of the two countries cultures with inaccurate facts.I would assume he spoke in an attempt to help clear is name or show how the US is infringing upon them wrongfully.Instead it just helps to reinforce stereotypes of him and his people. Also, this comment,"Women in Iran enjoy the highest levels of freedom," is another inaccurate fact that he uses to prove useless information not relevant to the problem at hand. I think the way he approached this damaged his reputation an his countries on possibly a global scale.
-Ryan Wallace
I am torn with my feelings towards Ahmadinejad speach at Columbia. While he is a foreign leader and therefore should garner a deal of respect, his prior actions and quotes are disturbing to me and question whether he deserves the same amount of respect as other world leaders. His open questioning of the Holocaust is downright odd considering all the evidence that it actually happened. Also, how Iran is constantly under fire for their nuclear programs brings it into question as to what Ahmadinejad's plans truly are. Some of the quotes from the article seemed to counter some of his previous statements, namely those about Israel. However, one of the most off-the-wall comments Ahmadinejad made was in regards to Iran not having any homosexuals. It almost seems at times as if he is just saying some things to spark controversy. At this point in the public relations between our country and Iran, I don't think it was the smartest idea for Columbia University to let him speak, but in the end, the decision was up to those in charge at the school.
-Ian Dixon
Like many other people who posted on this topic, I have mixed feelings about Columbia University's President, Lee Bollinger, inviting Mahoud Ahmadinejad to speak in front of the student body. First of all, I think it is great for people to hear from Ahmadinejad in person. Unfortunately for us, the media is never just straight facts, it’s a business, and just like any other business, it needs to draw people to it, whether that means creating more drama then needed, or taking a particular side. By having Ahmadinejad speak for himself, people are able to hear EXACTLY what he has to say instead of just being quoted or attacked in a newspaper or on television. I think it’s important for everyone to see/ hear things from more than one point of view.
On the other hand, many of Ahmadinejad’s statements were ridiculous. Many of his comments, such as the one in which he denied the Holocaust ever happened were inappropriate and insulting to not only American’s, but people all over the world.
-John Georges
Suddenly freedom of speech practiced by another country's leader doesn't seem so appealing to the Americans. The notion of democracy, of soveriegnty, of freedom, all fail when its ideas are applied on other nations. Such notions can only selfishly work for the Americans. The US government, post 9/11, has not respected the notion of democracy or soveriegnty. They made a mistake in Iraq back in the 80s. They covered it up today by blowing it away to smithereens today. Though I don't discredit the fact that the Holocaust never happened, the world should not ignore the consequences of that act on a nation whose freedom has been compromised. What Ahmedinajad hoped to accomplish through that forum was to tell the Americans in plain terms exactly how it is the world which has been betrayed by them in the past feels. Proxy wars, deaths of innocents, destructions of political ideologies and overthrown governments; the champions of democracy are now obligators of genocide.
The forum wasn't about gays or women or freedom. It was about insulting the president of another country. It was about the denigration of a man who suffered because of his beliefs. It was an astonishing display of lack of tolerance and patience, both of which democracy upholds as virtues. It was exactly what the Americans wanted.
-Kim, Hyo Suk
i feel as though Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia should be taken with a big grain of salt. obviously, he wasn't called on to speak as a scholarly or intellectual source, but simply to provide an alternating viewpoint from the media and to give the media an explanation of iran's attempt to become a nuclear state. as americans, we have an obligation to hear out opposing viewpoints, even by providing them a semi-prestigious forum in which to speak. essentially ahmadinejad's speech was nothing more than a gigantic catalyst used to fuel anti-iranian sentiment by giving him the dignity of speaking in a well-known forum and having him make slurs against the holocaust and claiming that there are no homosexuals in iran.
-mack shane
President of Columbia University to Ahmadinejad:
Fourth, to be clear on another matter, this event has nothing whatsoever to do with any rights of the speaker, but only with our rights to listen and speak. We do it for ourselves. We do it in the great tradition of openness that has defined this nation for many decades now. We need to understand the world we live in, neither neglecting its glories nor shrinking from its threats and dangers. "
A year ago, I am reliably told, your preposterous and belligerent statements in this country, as at one of the meetings at the Council on Foreign Relations, so embarrassed sensible Iranian citizens that this led to your party's defeat in the December mayoral elections. May this do that and more. (Applause)
"I am only a professor, who is also a university president. And today I feel all the weight of the modern civilized world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for. I only wish I could do better. Thank you. (Cheers, extended applause.)"
I agree with what the Columbia president said, but I don't agree that he said it. Why ask someone to speak and then shoot him down before he talks. Let the audience to that. Just like i don't agree with people saying he shouldn't have talked. He may be a tyrant and a complete dick, but if we restrict his right to free speech in this country we might as well do it to our own citizens.
-Katie Dunn
Wow, that’s my first reaction to that article. I believe that it is a good idea to have him here to speak because it gives us an idea of his perspective on the issues he addressed. Americans are so used to everyone thinking in one mindset so we don’t expect for ignorant comments to come out of anyone’s mouth. We need to realize that even though we are surprised by his speech, he and other people in this world find our ideas and actions to be silly because not everyone thinks the same. I appreciate that we were able to see his perspective; however I still don’t agree with him. I’m basing my opinion on my knowledge from society and my personal beliefs. I think there are gay people in every part in this world, but once again that’s my opinion. Also the holocaust, from my knowledge, did occur. I believe just like our government covers their mistakes, the Germen were doing the same by destroying evidence.
ddepina@udel.edu
In my opinion the Iranian President Ahmadinejad, should have been welcome to speak at any American University. Students should be able to see the opposite side of the situation, and listen to what others who are being affected by the situation in Iraq and the Middle East have to say. Though Ahmadinejad opinions on certain subjects such as the Holocaust being a myth, and that there were no gay iranians in his country are extremely uneducated and incorrect he does have his right to voice them.
-Amanda McDonnell
In reaction to President Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia University, I feel that it was a positive action. I feel that it is an exercise of free speech and a testament to the freedom of the United States to have a leader of a country with whom we have a bit of conflict to speak at a prestigious university. Also, having Ahmadinejad speak at Columbia is a chance to improve relations between the United States and Iran as it shows that while the US government has problems with Iran, the people of the United States want to try to understand Iran's point of view. Overall, I think it can only be considered positive and that US citizens should open their minds to the possibilities such an event presents to our country.
-Ann de la Montaigne
In reaction to Ahmadinejad's speech, I do not really understand why there was such an uproar of protest against him speaking. America is the land of the free and we are entitled free speech. Ahmadinejad should be allowed to say whatever he wishes and from watching his speech it only hurt his image, which I felt he did.
Also, as said in other blogs, I agree that allowing Ahmadinejad to speak helps relations between Iran and the United States. Talking is always a good thing. If that fails then trouble soon follows. Politicians from other countries should always be allowed to speak freely in our country.
In responce to Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia University, I think it was a good decision by the university to allow him to speak. How often is an enemy given a venue to speak in a country that considers his country a hostile threat and part of the infamous "Axis of Evil." I think it gives the U.S. an advantage to look into the mind of someone we consider an enemy because allowing him to speak only showed how backward his thoughts and stance on international belifs are. Denying the fact of the holocaust and caliming Iran didn't have any gays is completely wrong of a leader of a country to say becuase both are fairly obvious observations. The president of the University even commented that the reason he cam was to "exhibit[s] all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator." I think his speach just showed how ignorant he is to the problems of the middle east, and that by claiming the U.S. and Israel are the problems there is making a statement denying the roots causes of an unstable middle east.
By Brendon Butler
The second blog above was written by me. Forgot to add my name
-Matt Atkinson
I believe that inviting Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia was not a bad idea, I think that it makes the United States come across as if we are a strong country since there is a lot of tension between the two countries. This shows that we are not afraid to invite a potential enemy into our homeland and we are willing to listen to what he has to say despite the fact that we oppose it. I feel that it is important for us to have a peaceful relation with Ahmadinejad with as little tension as possible because of our position in the middle east and his new positioning in South America.
I saw his speech on TV and found it to be eye-opening. For example, he claimed that there are little to no gays in Iran. To me, this shows a strange mentality. Its as though, should he not want something, it doesn't exist. He effectively compared our capitol punishment to his killing of gays. He also spoke about some type of unity between the US and Iran in which they would be our greatest friends. But we know they burn our flag in the streets! He said that we need to investigate the holocaust and 9/11 because we can't be so sure. But if he is going to deny the holocaust, wouldn't that imply thay he has already done his research? Shouldn't he have shown us the truth right then and there? And he claimed he doesn't reconize Israel as a state, but desires to blow it off the map. He also claims that they only want nuclear power and not nuclear bombs, but how would you wipe country off the map without the power to do so? In the end, I think its a great idea that that he was invited to give his fancy speach. In my opinion, he just made a fool of himself. And, had he made sense, than it would have been our responsibility to rethink some issues. Free speach is a great thing.
Stephane Stewart
My first reaction after watching his speech on TV was disbelief. His comments on gay persons in Iran were biased and sounded like they were coming from a very unintelligent man. As far as allowing Ahmadinejab being allowed to speak at a US University i believe he should definately be allowed to do so. The United States was built on the belief of spreading freedom and democracy to all, not just our citizens. By allowing this man to speak, we can all learn what NOT to do. In growing and becoming a moral and eductated person it is important to not overlook the opinions of others...whether we agree with them or not, we can still learn from them
Kevin Moreno
Although I didnt agree with much that he had to say I do feel it was the right thing for the United States to allow him to speak. We held to the doctrine of free speech which was one of the main princiapls our country was found upon. I realize however that theese freedoms are often infringed upon in the present day, so I looked into actually how liberal Columbia University is with regaurds to its speakers and I found a very intresting article.
http://www.wnbc.com/news/14143541/detail.html
This article is about a speaker at Columbia, Jim Gilchrist, who is the founder of an anti-illegal immigration project. he spoke at the university earlier in the year and was essentially "booed" off stage. He had a previosly schedualed appointment to speak at the university later that year but becasue of the rucus he caused the first time he was told he could not. Maybe this is a stretch but I find it to be a bit of a double standard. Is speech truly sacred anywhere or can it truly just be taken on a case by case senario
-Dan Shainker
Post a Comment