Titus, in his response to my post "Dueling Professors", noted that I owe Columbia University President Lee Bollinger an apology (I hope everyone got my title - Ahmad was a lecturer at one point in Tehran, as Bollinger is here) .
I owe nothing of the sort.
I disagreed with his decision to host the event (and still do) but was honest enough to acknowledge how well he used it to confront "Ahmad." I praised the tone and substance of Bollinger's words in spades, lest we forget I am the one who cut and pasted it all over the Bund. It was a fantastic confrontation and just how much disdain Bollinger has for Ahmad was not left to the imagination.
However, I want to add ... I STILL think Bollinger is guilty of a great hypocrisy. If Ahmad's appearance was justified under the annals of free speech, then what is his excuse for ejecting the ROTC from campus? He clearly stated it was over his disapproval of the "don't ask don't tell" policy. Fine, he disagrees with it, but why can he vehemently disagree with Ahmad, yet allow him on campus, then turn right around and NOT honor that same free speech right for the US military? It would appear his defense of the 1st amendment is selective.
As McCain correctly pointed out, that program is responsible for the majority of the officers we have in place today. It is ironic that he would deny free speech to the very organization that defends (sometimes with their life) his. Are they not worthy of the same free speech Bollinger so treasures? Are they some how less deserving of free speech considerations then a man Bollinger himself refers to as "a petty and cruel dictator"?
How poignant the moment would have been had 6 ROTC cadets been able to sit in the front row, in full dress uniform and berets, while Mr.Coatsworth read ... "The following comes from our students within the Reserve Officer Training Core. 'The United sates soldier is sworn to defend this nation from all enemies foreign and domestic, and they are without a doubt the most professional and well trained soldiers in the history of warfare. As your country's leader, do you think it wise to risk a war with men such as these?' Columbia would have had every red blooded American from sea to shining sea jumping out of their seats to applaud. Unfortunately this is a moment that Mr. Bollinger will never allow to happen. Not because the despot was uninvited mind you, but because those cadets were.
Give him all the "kudos" for his confrontation of Ahmad you want Titus, I have done as much myself. But let us be as forthright and loud in our condemnation of his ROTC stance. It is deplorable. One might even say that to kick the ROTC off campus just because he disagrees with a single policy of theirs are the actions of a "petty and cruel dean."
FR
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I do so love watching (or reading) as you get all righteously indignant on issues you are very nearly completely ignorant of…
Yes, the ROTC program was expelled by Columbia University in opposition to the war. This is undeniable fact. AND it was the only fact you had right.
The ROTC program was expelled from Columbia in 1969, when Bollinger was still an undergraduate at Oregon. He had nothing whatsoever to do with the removal of the program.
In 2003, the student council (or whatever they call themselves at that pretentious university) was voting on bringing the ROTC back so that students enrolled in it didn’t have to travel to neighboring campuses to fill their obligations. Bollinger did VOTE (he only gets one vote) against it, and the measure did not pass… but not by some unilateral presidential effort on his part.
As far as I know, he supports the efforts of ROTC in collegiate achievement… but I don’t know anything for sure.
What I DO know is that he had NOTHING at all to do with expelling the ROTC.
You now owe the man TWO apologies…
In other words, as University president, he advocates bringing an actual despot on campus under the the banner of free speech and the free exchange of ideas, but he would, via his vote, deny that same free speech to the ROTC? What has changed?
What has changed? You've added specifics to my more general statment of his opposing the ROTC on campus, but nothing has changed. Fine, he didn't personally or unilaterally through them off campus - he still opposes their presence and did evrything allowed in his professional capacity to ensure they wouldn't return.
So, that being the case, let me APOLOGIZE ...I'm sorry Mr. Bollinger. Sorry that you are such a sniviling little unpatriotic Ivy leauge elitist who somehow finds it acceptable to, in an act of shameless self promotion, bring a murderous antidemocratic foreigner on campus in order to demonstrate your enlightened sense of free speech, whilst simultaneously opposing the very presence of those young men and women who make your ability to freely be such an ignorant ass possible.
How's that?
FR
Let me add ..
How can you make the statement, "As far as I know, he supports the efforts of ROTC in collegiate achievement… but I don’t know anything for sure."
He voted AGAINST their return according to you! What about that smacks of support for the ROTC? What, he supports it on other campuses, just not his? Give me a break.
In fact I captured the sentiment and stance of Bollinger VERY well, I only made one mistake - he didn't originally ejected them. But given his open and active opposition to their return, the charge of HYPOCRICY still stands as undeniable. Ahmad not only came to Columbia, he was PERSONALLY invited by Bollinger after having, in 2003, PERSONALLY voted to continue the ban on the ROTC. Hypocritical. Deplorable. Rediculous. Unpatriotic. Hold on .. I'll think of some more adjectives.
All you did was further demonstrate and affirm my original point by offering more detail on his stance. So thank you.
FR
Post a Comment