[NYTr] Ahmadinejad at Columbia: Academic Freedom

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

Counterpunch - Sep 26, 2007


Ahmadinejad at Columbia:

Freedom to Speak, Freedom to Learn

By Col. DAN SMITH

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad flew into New York City Saturday.
He had come to the United States to speak before the UN General
Assembly's opening session this week. Under agreement with the UN, the
United States as the host country for the UN headquarters cannot refuse
to issue a visa to heads of state or other officials who come to the UN
to speak. However, the State Department can and does impose a maximum
travel radius on representatives of countries deemed unfriendly.
Moreover, within the allowed radius, police departments may refuse
requests, on the basis of security concerns, to go to specific
destinations.

On Monday morning--September 24--The New York Daily News front page was
taken up with a picture of President Ahmadinejad and four words, all in
capital letters: The EVIL HAS LANDED. The objection so voiced in print
was part of the wide-spread protest against a speaking engagement at
Columbia University by the Iranian president.

The invitation tendered by Columbia was freely extended and freely
accepted, with no preconditions or restrictions. Despite some
vociferous objections to allowing an individual who denies that the
Holocaust happened and has said that Israel should disappear from the
map, the venue was most appropriate. To quote the great 19th century
Roman Catholic prelate-scholar, John Henry Cardinal Newman, a
university is a "School of Universal Learning [implying] the assemblage
of strangers from all parts in one spot.Accordingly, in its simple and
rudimental form, it is a school of knowledge of every kind, consisting
of teachers and learners from every quarter. [A] University seems to be
in its essence, a place for the communication and circulation of
thought, by means of personal intercourse, through a wide extent of
country" (The Idea of a University).

Of course, if "communication and circulation of thought" justifies
giving Ahmadinejad a forum, the question comes as to whether there is
any limitations on free speech in a university setting.
Constitutionally, the Supreme Court has carved out some limits on
general First Amendment rights, but the Court, as far as I am aware,
has not directed such limits to universities.

Nonetheless, I suggest that there is at least one limit: courtesy to a
guest, especially when the guest has been invited, in part, because his
views are known to be contrary to those of the institutions. It is this
limit that Columbia's president, Lee Bollinger, violated in his rather
extended remarks delivered before President Ahmadinejad said a word.

Protesting that he was but a university professor who happened also to
be a university president, Bollinger started by reminding the audience
that to listen to someone in no way implies acceptance or an
endorsement of what is said--which includes both Columbia's guest and
those demonstrating against his presence on the university campus.
Bollinger also urged his listeners to never retreat when confronted
with ideas that one detests but to take them on.

All that was fair game and needed to be said. Bollinger then presented
a list of grievances and accusations against internal policies and
practices of the Iranian state as well as the foreign policies of the
Islamic Republic. This too, was within bounds, particularly since
Bollinger started by reminding Ahmadinejad that his country had
arrested, imprisoned, and only recently released some Iranian-American
academics visiting Iran, including members of Columbia's faculty. (At
least one academic is still under house arrest in Iran.) But then
President Bollinger veered into a personal attack, calling Ahmadinejad
"a petty and cruel dictator."

President Bollinger is perfectly free to hold that opinion and to
express it--which he did directly to the Iranian president. Yet, the
verbal assault on the visitor seemed extremely crude and, arguably, not
factual. Granted that all candidates for political office in Iran are
subject to a vetting process, Iranians seem to feel that they have
(few?) real choices when they participate in general elections for
president, parliament, and "local" government.

Ahmadinejad's reaction was to chide Bollinger for, in effect, being
rude. Bollinger, in my view, accomplished nothing by delivering his
verbal assault before Ahmadinejad spoke other than confirm for Iranians
that, even in its universities, America is an intolerant society.

For those who decided to skip the broadcast of the speech (carried
partially on CNN and completely by Fox News), the general themes that
are Ahmadinejad's stock in trade were present: Palestine-Israel, U.S.
dominance, nuclear energy/weapons, sanction regimes (e.g., spare parts
for commercial airliners), and Iran as a victim of terror. He also,
without naming the United States, rejected the authenticity of
"freedom" in what he termed "bullying powers" whose governments spy on
citizens' telephone conversations, r try to undermine ancient cultures,
or try to prevent other countries from making scientific advances
(obviously referring to nuclear energy development). In fact, running
throughout the speech was a noticeable emphasis on science and the
scientific method as an instrument for improving people's lives

Those were most of the main points in Ahmadinejad's prepared remarks.
But one issue deserves additional comment: Ahmadinejad's position on
the Holocaust.

Columbia the Iranian president did not claim that the Holocaust never
happened. He expressed concern that the prevalent attitude that further
research on the Holocaust is not needed violates the principles of
intellectual and academic enquiry. Nothing is so extensively
investigated, he said, that we can be sure that no further knowledge or
fresh perspectives will be forthcoming.

Listening carefully to the speech and the answers to questions that the
audience posed, it is possible to unravel Ahmadinejad's line of
thought. He seems to assume that the methodology of learning is the
same regardless of the subject--and that is the scientific mode of
enquiry that is never conclusive, never final, always open to revision
and correction. The other distinguishing feature of scientific enquiry
is the ability of other scientists to replicate experiments and confirm
the results.

But there is another methodology, one that Ahmadinejad ignores even
though it pertains to non-scientific enquiries. This "humanistic"
methodology is an inductive process that assimilates reports of events
and perspectives of individuals to build a holistic description (or as
nearly holistic as possible) of an event. Unlike a scientific
experiment in which variables can be frozen and unfrozen as the
experiment runs, life cannot be frozen or exactly replicated because
the context of the original event can never be recovered

In terms of the Holocaust, Ahmadinejad tries to apply to a historical
event that cannot be replicated the same standard that scientific
enquiry yields--contingent consensus on what is "reality" based on the
present state of knowledge. But in humanistic events, once they happen,
they cannot be altered. At best, they can be thoroughly investigated
and recorded to serve as a warning for future generations.

And although I do not believe President Ahmadinejad's comments were
directed to this point, there is one aspect of the Holocaust that must
not be closed off. That is the questioning of the conditions that
should have served as warning signs--in history, sociology, and
politics--and tracking these back as far as possible.

Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Darfur are recent reminders that we have not
yet escaped the possibility of another Holocaust. More study on how to
sustain the veneer of "civilized" behavior is needed--and soon.


[Col. Dan Smith is a military affairs analyst for Foreign Policy In
Focus , a retired U.S. Army colonel, and a senior fellow on military
affairs at the Friends Committee on National Legislation. Email at
dan at fcnl.org.]