2008 Woodie Awards
Ahmadinejad Debate Ignores Students
Paul Adam
Issue date: 10/8/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
For five somewhat funny yet somewhat scary hours, America's attention was focused squarely on Columbia University. We all saw the protests. We all heard the university administrators valiantly trying to defend their cause. We all now know that Iran has no homosexuals. But amidst the political uproar and intrigue, something was missing. Unless they were in the middle of the protest, we didn't see any actual Columbia students.
A friend of mine described what he saw from his dorm room. Snipers were positioned on rooftops across the street. The campus was swarming with protesters, radicals, police and security. It was nearly impossible to get anywhere.
"I was scared to go outside," he said, and I can easily imagine why.
Personal security is obviously a major concern, but on a greater scale, for the duration of the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fracas, Columbia was expropriated from its own students by the faculty, the media, the police and Ahmadinejad himself, all for political purposes. Involvement in the debate, as you saw was grownups-only. Student leaders did not sp applause and sneering laughter, which as far as the networks were concerned, could have been pre-recorded in a studio.
The arguments of University president Lee Bollinger and International and Public Affairs dean John Coatsworth, that the debate was happening for the sake of political discourse and free speech doesn't wash for me. Although it is true that Universities are supposed to serve as bastions of free thought and discussion, those things must stay high and clear of the actual political scene of the day for that debate to remain free and non-partisan. This is a reason sitting congressmen don't concurrently sit on think tanks. It's why presidential libraries aren't founded while the president is still in office.
The separation is as important as a double blind in psychology. Political scientists observe and present findings but knowing how the results will be used can impact the study itself. It's impossible to research, debate and study political science objectively and be a political player at the same time. The minute Ahmadinejad stepped on the quad, Columbia ceased to be an institute of higher education and became a political player.
The American government has a vested interest in making a fool of Ahmadinejad. As soon as he ceases to be useful, the Mullahs will pull him back in, as they've done with all his predecessors, and find a new Number Two. By trying to expedite the process, Columbia is tipping the scales in America's favor. While that's certainly a positive goal, it's the job of the politicians, not the job of a University.
As far as Mahmoud and his spin doctors are concerned, the university played right into his hand by allowing him to scoff America, its freedoms of speech and its values while standing in one of her best universities.
The reason why Columbia's decision is so odious to me is that it appears to have been a top-down choice. When students set their own political agendas, as when the Columbia Young Republicans invited Jon Gilchrist, founder of the notorious Minutemen, they were shot down for the very same reason the Columbia administration invited Ahmadinejad. Here, the students were led to an assembly hall, and pawned back and forth by Ahmadinejad and Coatsworth in their game of political chess.
Just as any research about the Vietnam War to come out of Kent State will inevitably be touched by the university's own role in the war, any discussion of U.S.-Iranian political affairs, or the phenomenon of Holocaust denial to come from Columbia now should always carry an asterisk. A good political cause may have been advanced, but in the end students and academics will be footing the bill.
Paul Adam is Associate Editor for The Commentator
A friend of mine described what he saw from his dorm room. Snipers were positioned on rooftops across the street. The campus was swarming with protesters, radicals, police and security. It was nearly impossible to get anywhere.
"I was scared to go outside," he said, and I can easily imagine why.
Personal security is obviously a major concern, but on a greater scale, for the duration of the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fracas, Columbia was expropriated from its own students by the faculty, the media, the police and Ahmadinejad himself, all for political purposes. Involvement in the debate, as you saw was grownups-only. Student leaders did not sp applause and sneering laughter, which as far as the networks were concerned, could have been pre-recorded in a studio.
The arguments of University president Lee Bollinger and International and Public Affairs dean John Coatsworth, that the debate was happening for the sake of political discourse and free speech doesn't wash for me. Although it is true that Universities are supposed to serve as bastions of free thought and discussion, those things must stay high and clear of the actual political scene of the day for that debate to remain free and non-partisan. This is a reason sitting congressmen don't concurrently sit on think tanks. It's why presidential libraries aren't founded while the president is still in office.
The separation is as important as a double blind in psychology. Political scientists observe and present findings but knowing how the results will be used can impact the study itself. It's impossible to research, debate and study political science objectively and be a political player at the same time. The minute Ahmadinejad stepped on the quad, Columbia ceased to be an institute of higher education and became a political player.
The American government has a vested interest in making a fool of Ahmadinejad. As soon as he ceases to be useful, the Mullahs will pull him back in, as they've done with all his predecessors, and find a new Number Two. By trying to expedite the process, Columbia is tipping the scales in America's favor. While that's certainly a positive goal, it's the job of the politicians, not the job of a University.
As far as Mahmoud and his spin doctors are concerned, the university played right into his hand by allowing him to scoff America, its freedoms of speech and its values while standing in one of her best universities.
The reason why Columbia's decision is so odious to me is that it appears to have been a top-down choice. When students set their own political agendas, as when the Columbia Young Republicans invited Jon Gilchrist, founder of the notorious Minutemen, they were shot down for the very same reason the Columbia administration invited Ahmadinejad. Here, the students were led to an assembly hall, and pawned back and forth by Ahmadinejad and Coatsworth in their game of political chess.
Just as any research about the Vietnam War to come out of Kent State will inevitably be touched by the university's own role in the war, any discussion of U.S.-Iranian political affairs, or the phenomenon of Holocaust denial to come from Columbia now should always carry an asterisk. A good political cause may have been advanced, but in the end students and academics will be footing the bill.
Paul Adam is Associate Editor for The Commentator
Be the first to comment on this story