The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Gemini Cricket]

So Iran doesn't have any gays. Well, there's another reason not to go vacationing in Iran.

[scaeagles]

On a more serious note, I am disturbed about the whole visit of the Iranian President. They are a state sponsor of terror. Yet Columbia University welcomes him with open arms.

I will admit that I was completely against this, yet I will also admit that from what I've read he was not given an open forum to speak only of what he wanted and was confronted on his human rights abuses, though I would have liked there to have been more of it.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

On a more serious note, I am disturbed about the whole visit of the Iranian President. They are a state sponsor of terror. Yet Columbia University welcomes him with open arms.

I will admit that I was completely against this, yet I will also admit that from what I've read he was not given an open forum to speak only of what he wanted and was confronted on his human rights abuses, though I would have liked there to have been more of it.

Did you see how he was introduced by the University President? Not exactly what I'd call welcoming him with open arms.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'm with Mo Rocca on this one. Free Speech is still an ideal in this country, no?

[Prudence]

I say let him speak. How much evil goes unchallenged in the world because it's easy to ignore? Because it's happening somewhere else, to people different than us, all filtered through a media lens that may or may not reflect an accurate picture. After all, we're fairly accustomed to alleging that preposterous remarks were taken out of context, blown out of proportion, spoken by a mere figurehead.

I say invite him to speak and shine a bright light on what he says so that all can see clearly what rubbish it is.

[wendybeth]

Right on, Pru. He is an evil little man, and his lies were exposed and addressed. Wasn't he one of the bastards that took over the Embassy and held hostages for so long? Was anything said about that?

[scaeagles]

I don't believe his past as one of the hostage takers was brought up.

I suppose the one aspect of this that angers me, while what JW said is completely true, is that it becomes a propaganda piece for him. He can pick and choose which parts he wants to use in his own country and in the middle east. Just look at how it was portrayed in the IRanian press. Something tells me his comments about gays and the introductionhe received aren't going to be widely played there, but the parts where the students were clapping for him will be.

Do we not know evil from what he has already said and done, though? What I don't understand is why this man was allowed to speak, but Larry Summers, former president of Harvard who dared suggest that genetic differences between men and women may come in to play regarding the higher number of men successful in the fields of math and science (rather than the politically correct educational bias angle), had a speaking engagement cancelled at UC Davis when the female faculty went nuts about it.

Freedom of speech does not in any way mean freedom to be heard or the right to be provided a forum in which to speak. So I do not see it in any way as a freedom of speech issue.

[Alex]

I'm of the opinion that if Columbia (or some segment thereof) would like to hear him speak and he's willing, that is fine.

What I find interesting, though, is a certain contrast. Last week, Lawrence Summers, former Harvard president and former Secretary of Treasury, was scheduled to give a speech to the University of California board of regents.

An invitation that was rescinded in response to a petition by women's groups offended by a single comment the man once made (that genetic predispositions might play a role in achievement differential at the highest ends of math, science, and engineering).

Obviously, these are different institutions and it can't be a direct comparison of hypocrisy. But my problem with the general claim of "academic freedom," or "exposure to all ideas" is that as a composite community, it is an idea to intermittently held to by academia.

So, yes, Columbia did the right thing. I even think the president's introduction was inappropriate (in timing, not in content). But I'm bothered that when controversies of this sort arise that universities and colleges so rarely seem to do the right thing, especially if the controversial speaker is from the right end of the political spectrum.

[Moonliner]

Universities are not government agencies. They don't need to be consistent or even fair in their decision on speakers. What they need to be is free to decided for themselves who/what should be heard on their campus. If we the people do not agree with their choices then we get to vent about it, withhold our alumni checks, not send our kids there, etc....

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

Universities are not government agencies. They don't need to be consistent or even fair in their decision on speakers. What they need to be is free to decided for themselves who/what should be heard on their campus. If we the people do not agree with their choices then we get to vent about it, withhold our alumni checks, not send our kids there, etc....

I don't suggest that anyone who attempted to prevent him from speaking did anything unconstitutional. But I disagree with the spirit of their protest none-the-less. I understand that a private entity is perfectly entitled to block whomever they feel from using their forum to speak, however as an educational institution I fell universities should hold (not be held to, hold) a higher standard of freedom of expression.

The fact that the prevailing sentiment not just in and around the university, but in the press coverage, is that he shouldn't have been heard bugs me. I see it as yet another symptom of the current fear-driven morality. I'm of the opinion that the message of the first amendment is that words shouldn't be feared, that allowing anyone their voice is of prime importance to freedom. And I find it the height of irony that people were decrying him for his human rights violations while trying to deny him an opportunity to exercise one of his own basic rights. Again, I know it's not unconstitutional, and everyone involved would have been within their rights to deny him. But "allowed to" and "should" are two different things, and trying to silence him sends,in my opinion, the wrong message about who we are as a country.

Akin to my feelings on the "preemptive strike" doctrine. While we're under no obligation to extend our constitutional ideals of "innocent until proven guilty" to the world, when our message is that those ideals are the best way to promote freedom, we should do everything we can to uphold those ideals in everything we do, whether we're obligated to or not.