Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Excellent post Rand.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at September 25, 2007 07:01 AM

Agree with Cecil, good posts. However, I heard some Conservatives going a step beyond condemning Columbia and threatening other sanctions to censor them. I think that is a bad idea. Columbia University is certainly hypocritical in their stance on the Military, which isn't allowed to speak to students on campus, and allowing Ahmadinejad a podium. That should be noted and well announced. Columbia University should be sanctioned, like Yale, from receiving government funds if it denies the Armed Services, but not for allowing Ahmadinejad. The US certainly doesn't need to enforce VISA privileges because a speaker may drive slightly beyond 25 miles to attend a well publicized event.

The way to handle Columbia is to put the spotlight on them, not take it away. Yeah, Admadinejad got a big ego stroke from it, and that's not good, but he got his ego stroked by the UN in just being allowed to walk on US soil. But that's why the US is better than Iran. The same goes for Columbia, which doesn't allow US citizens to talk on its campus, but does allow sponsors of state terrorism a microphone and an audience. Denouncing the speaker is just one more point of idiocy by the Columbia University President.

Posted by Leland at September 25, 2007 07:37 AM

Leland,
the only sanction I heard threatened was by the conservative alumni of Columbia. They threatened to cease donating money because of the schools continued support of anti-American activities on campus.

That is a fairly normal response to disagreeing with an organization. Personally there are a number of groups that my wife and I have ceased funding because of their social / political stances. I'd say most people do that.

Posted by Steve at September 25, 2007 08:01 AM

I pretty much agree with Leland. The "solution" for speech someone opposes is more speech and if Columbia alums wish to express their disapproval by holding back donations that also is their right.

As for Rand's post, letting Admadinejad tell the crowd that there are "no gays in Iran" will do more for rallying support against Iran than refusing him a podium.

America is so very much stronger than radical Islam I see no reason to fear letting their spokespeople blather.

= = =

And of course, Admadinejad has absolutely no "right" to speak at Columbia however Columbia does have the "right" to invite whomsoever they may choose to speak, and thereafter should be judged solely in the court of opinion.

Posted by Bill White at September 25, 2007 09:05 AM

Steve, why are Conservative alumni of Columbia still donating anyway? I would think any true Conservative would have stopped when Columbia kicked out the ROTC.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at September 25, 2007 09:17 AM

CU was wrong to allow him to speak, but in my opinion, not because he's a petty dictator. I think he should be refused because of human rights violations, such as the woman being stoned to death last week in Iran.

Actually, it may turn out to be good in that every student interviewed that I read about, mentioned how upset he was during the question and answer session where he was regularly blasted by students. Maybe the left will see him for what he is now.

Posted by Mac at September 25, 2007 09:44 AM

Cecil,
that would be a question for them. I agree that when they booted ROTC, it would have been the time to stop supporting them.

But there's no reason to single out Columbia. We have heard from local leftists, even before GWB was elected, that the UNC System should run ROTC off of all the campuses. The loathing of all things military on college campuses is not new.

Posted by Steve at September 25, 2007 10:47 AM

Actually I thought it showed him up for the dumb little tosser that he actually is. He ought to be subjected to that sort of thing more often.

Posted by Dave at September 25, 2007 12:31 PM

Yes, he has a right to speak. But he has no right to speak where others, particularly Columbia students, will hear him.

He does if they invite him to speak and they did. And this not being Iran, the students were there voluntarily. Sucks, but there you have it.

He has no right to further sully the once-great name of that university with his presence.

Further sully. Yeah, they've been sullied silly. And they can self-sully at will.

Posted by D Anghelone at September 25, 2007 12:41 PM

from simberg's latest link:

President Bush said Monday that if Columbia "thinks it's a good idea to have the leader from Iran come and talk to the students as an educational experience, I guess it's OK with me."
Bush, in an interview with Fox News Channel, said, "I'm not so sure I'd have offered the same invitation." However, he said, "I mean when you really think about it, he's the head of a state sponsor of terror, he's — and yet an institution in our country gives him a chance to express his point of view, which really speaks to the freedoms of the country."

Posted by George W. Bush at September 25, 2007 12:51 PM

He does if they invite him to speak and they did.

And if they disinvite him (which they could have) he doesn't. That is, he has no "right" to speak. He merely had an invitation. I see you want to redefine words as well.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 25, 2007 01:07 PM

I don't predicate my opinions on what George Bush says or thinks, Anonymous Idiot Masquerading as George Bush.

I suspect that you do though--I'm guessing that if he says something, that's generally sufficient reason for you to believe the opposite.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 25, 2007 01:09 PM

And if they disinvite him (which they could have) he doesn't.

Could have uninvited him but didn't.

I see you want to redefine words as well.

Hey, I'm not doing this to bust balls. I say you have erred in calling this a claim to some positive right. Yes, many people are doing that but you shouldn't be one of them.

Posted by D Anghelone at September 25, 2007 01:23 PM

I say you have erred in calling this a claim to some positive right. Yes, many people are doing that but you shouldn't be one of them.

I'm not doing that. Having an invitation to speak does not confer a "right" to speak. It confers (as I said) a privilege to speak.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 25, 2007 01:31 PM

Admadinejad has absolutely no "right" to speak at Columbia however Columbia does have the "right" to invite whomsoever they may choose to speak.

How to deal with Admadinejad?

Ezra Klein suggests ridicule. Perhaps we combine that with YouTube snippets sent to all Iranians showing Columbia students laughing at him.

Watch Ahmadinejad's face here.
He's not being feared. He's being laughed at. Imagine how the Iranian people feel seeing these clips (and they're seeing them). Imagine how the rest of the Iranian government feels being made to look so foolish -- and all for this jester's dreams of personal aggrandizement.

The Bush administration has long upheld that our best weapons against Iran are our unwillingness to speak with them and the threat of bombing. They've failed. But our willingness to expose Ahmadinejad to the risks of free and public speech, combined with YouTube, may prove to be far more potent.

Posted by Bill White at September 25, 2007 02:34 PM

Bill White is right.

CU, and anyone else, can invite Ahmadinejad (or anyone else they please) to speak. Just as we as individuals can agree or disagree with it. I think both his speech and the demonstrations against him (plus the pretty good questions) are good for us, internally and externally.

Pragmatically, sunlight drives away cockroaches. The more we see "petty tyrants and dictators" confronted before our eyes and see how they deal (or don't) with the hard questions and the laughter, the more we really know about them.

I am not particularly religious, but "The truth shall set ye free". I do believe that, with all my heart and brain.

Posted by MJ at September 25, 2007 05:13 PM

What bothers me about the whole thing is that they invite the guy to speak, conferring upon him a legitimacy that he does not deserve, but then they lay into him with all of the boiler-plate left-wing condemnations of what he stands for, as if that makes it all OK.

It reminds of of a couple of Gary Larson Far Side cartoons. One has a mummy emerge from the crypt, point his finger in succession at a group of explorers and onlookers declaiming "A curse on you, and you, and you (exclamation point)". Or the one about the assistant devil in Hell complaining about the remarks of his colleague
, "He called me a wimp. Well, the heck with you, the heck with all of you (exclamation point)"

Or perhaps the left-wing bumper stickers opposing the war or being mad at President Bush. "End the war NOW!" as if the capital letters and exclamation point have such a powerful influence on changing hearts and minds if it were. Who needs an Army, a Navy, and an Air Force when one can employ bumper stickers with capital letters and exclamation points to fight the enemy.

Mr. Amadinajad is not going to leave chastened or with his opinion changed, but he is going to leave with the opinion that there are a lot of loud and stupid people in America, just as we have long held the opinion that there are a lot of loud and stupid people in Iran.

Posted by Paul Milenkovic at September 25, 2007 08:12 PM

"Pragmatically, sunlight drives away cockroaches."

Instant sunshine does it better.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at September 26, 2007 12:22 AM

The US was obliged to allow him entry to visit the UN but why allow him any more freedom of movement than the absolute minimum to access the UN?

Why was his visa not restricted to limit him to the airport, his hotel, the Iranian Consulate, the UN and non-stop direct routes between them? After all, during the Cold War Soviet and other Communist diplomats and visiting politicians had severe restrictions on their movements.

Posted by MNC at September 26, 2007 07:33 AM

Ahmadinejad had a "right" to speak for only as long as the university allows him the podium. It's private property, if he starts acting like a dick he will be asked to leave.

Posted by Adrasteia at September 26, 2007 07:35 AM

The first mistake, the government's, was to allow Ahmadinejad to enter the USA. The second mistake, made by many commenters, is to see Ahmadinejad's visit as a domestic free-speech issue.

He is our enemy, and if our enemy wants something we should not give it to him. The fact that we let him in and let him speak validated him to his Iranian and other non-USA audiences, none of whom cares about First Amendment fine points. Obviously he won't be well received by Americans but he wasn't visiting for our benefit. He came to bolster his authority, not to engage in dialogue. It's a shame that so many of us don't see that fact clearly.

Posted by Jonathan at September 26, 2007 10:01 AM

I don't think freedom of speech extends to non-citizens. There are people who should be listening to the propaganda of our enemies. We should even be responding to their speech in some forums. But shouldn't the goal be to discredit them? There's a big difference between active censorship and the passive cold shoulder to all requests to listen. That the US has not revoked Iran's president's freedom of movement within the US gives Columbia and Obama the freedom to make serious mistakes. This is a political boon to the Republicans, but little help in the war on nutters.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at September 26, 2007 11:15 AM

I think Sam makes my point better than me.

Adrasteia, Ahmadinejad does not have the right to speech in the US. Period. Doesn't matter if Columbia gives him a podium, his speech can still be denied. He can speak at the UN, because that is UN soil, not the US. He can get to the UN because of legal treaties between the US and the UN.

Posted by Leland at September 26, 2007 12:51 PM

Someone please remind me what benefits we get from the UN that we couldn't get from direct discussions with our friends and allies. We have no obligation to remain part of the UN or to host the UN. Nations may withdraw from treaties that no longer benefit them.

Posted by Jonathan at September 26, 2007 02:09 PM

Posted by Jonathan at September 26, 2007 02:11 PM

Jonathan,

Keep your friends close. Keep your enemies closer.

'Tis much easier to spy on these miscreants if they are in NYC, than if they are in (say) Montevideo, or Beijing, or (gulp) East Jerusalem.

Discarding the UN only makes sense once a capable parallel organization exists. For now, we do the kabuki dance with the UN, and do what we need to do uni-, bi-, and multi-laterally.

Posted by MG at September 26, 2007 02:43 PM

Point taken, but I think the surveillance value to us is outweighed by the PR/info-war value to the other side of having such easy access to our NYC-based media industry. Maybe we should compromise by moving the UN to northern Alaska.

Posted by Jonathan at September 26, 2007 05:57 PM

Ok, now I'm stunned by the liberal hypocrisy on censorship. Glenn pointed me to this Washington Post article about the NPR turning down a request by the President to be interviewed. The supposed claim is that the President picked his interviewer, but President's usually do. I buy their claim about Hillary as much as buy the notion the NYT offers the MoveOn advertising rate to everyone, and that the Hillary campaign was just a beneficiary of Norman Hsu.

Of course, Conservatives voted Bush to office in the hope he would push small government and stop funding to partisan groups like the CPB. He didn't.

Posted by Leland at September 26, 2007 07:26 PM

Yes, he did have a right to speak at Columbia but that does not imply that Columbia has an obligation to provide the platform, only that the government can't stop them from doing so.

Those who claim that a right to, say, healthcare obligates society to provide it are simply wrong and abusing the word. Either that or the second amendment means the government has to give everybody a gun.

Posted by Doug Murray at September 26, 2007 08:40 PM

Post a comment