PDA

View Full Version : School of the Absurd



thedrifter
09-27-07, 04:36 AM
September 27, 2007, 0:00 a.m.

School of the Absurd
Responsible debate and crass propaganda.

By Victor Davis Hanson


Have American academics lost their collective minds?

This week, Columbia University allowed Iran’s loony President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to be a lecturer on its campus.

In the circus that followed, Ahmadinejad weighed in on everything from Israel to homosexuals, and came off, as expected, like a petty bigot. All the same, by his very presence on an Ivy League stage, Ahmadinejad showed the world that a top American university considers his odious views worth showcasing.

Ahmadinejad has denied the first Holocaust and all but promised a second one. His country’s government is on its way to having a nuclear bomb, sends Iranian terrorists into Iraq to kill American soldiers and customarily jails journalists and expels politically active university students.

But all that apparently still earned Ahmadinejad his publicity coup — and occasional applause from the Columbia audience.

Yet in this time of war, Columbia won’t allow our own Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) on its campus.

One wonders whether Columbia would have invited Hitler as well. Don’t laugh — a foolish dean did indeed announce two days before Ahmadinejad’s visit that he would have likewise invited the Nazi fuhrer to speak.

Along with a general lack of common sense — and decency — the powers that be at Columbia, for all their erudition, don’t seem to understand the line between responsible debate and crass propaganda. But sadly they’re not alone in failing to understand how free speech works in a free society, especially on university campuses.

Take what happened this month at the University of California, Davis. Under pressure from campus feminists, the university withdrew an invitation to former Harvard University President Larry Summers to speak at a board of regents dinner.

Now, Summers has never threatened to blow up another country, but apparently he has committed a far greater sin for academics. The distinguished former secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton administration ran afoul of Harvard feminists for his off-the-cuff theorizing a few years ago about why women were not better represented on math and science faculties.

As penance, Summers allotted some $50 million in various earmarks for feminist programs at Harvard. But professors at UC Davis argued successfully that Summers was still unsuitable to speak at the regents event.

Meanwhile, the University of California, Irvine, this summer first offered, then rescinded, and, finally amid furor, re-offered their law school deanship to Erwin Chemerinsky. The liberal and outspoken Chermerinksy’s academic qualifications — he’s been a distinguished law professor at Duke — were never in doubt. But apparently the university’s chancellor, Michael Drake, was first fearful of offending a few donors by the appointment — and then more fearful of the public outrage should he not hire Chemerinsky.

Over at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, where I work, the recent decision to invite former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to serve on one of its task forces on ideology and terror as a distinguished visiting fellow caused furor on campus.

Rumsfeld was the youngest secretary of Defense in our history (when he served in the position during the Ford administration), and the only one to hold the distinguished office twice. Before resigning amid public controversy over the Defense Department’s inability to stabilize Iraq, Rumsfeld helped to plan brilliant victories over the Taliban and Saddam Hussein and sought to reform the American military.

Yet over 2,000 Stanford students and professors signed a petition in an unsuccessful effort to block the Rumsfeld appointment, arguing that his record in Iraq forfeited his very right to serve on a Stanford-affiliated task force.

In each of the above cases, the general public has had to remind these universities that their campuses should welcome thinkers who have distinguished themselves in their fields, regardless of politics and ideology. The liberal Chemerinsky, the Clinton Democrat Summers and the conservative Rumsfeld have all courted controversy — and all alike met the criterion of eminent achievement.

But the propagandist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has not. Unlike Chemerinsky,
Rumsfeld and Summers, he used the prestige of an Ivy-League forum solely to popularize his violent views — and to sugarcoat the mayhem his terrorists inflict on Americans and his promises to wipe out Israel.

Here’s a simple tip to the clueless tenured class about why a Larry Summers or Donald Rumsfeld should be welcome to speak, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shunned: former Cabinet secretaries — yes; homicidal dictators killing Americans — no.

Finally, universities should be free of sin before casting ideological stones at others. There are enough self-inflicted problems on their own campuses to keep them busy — from the declining skills of today’s college students to skyrocketing tuition and exploitation of graduate students and part-time faculty. They needn’t create more where they don’t exist.

Ellie

thedrifter
09-27-07, 05:11 AM
Tase Him Bro!
by Ann Coulter (more by this author)
Posted 09/26/2007 ET
Updated 09/26/2007 ET

Democrats should run Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for president. He's more coherent than Dennis Kucinich, he dresses like their base, he's more macho than John Edwards, and he's willing to show up at a forum where he might get one hostile question -- unlike the current Democratic candidates for president who won't debate on Fox News Channel. He's not married to an impeached president, and the name "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" is surely no more frightening than "B. Hussein Obama."

And liberals agree with Ahmadinejad on the issues! We know that because he was invited by an American university to speak on campus.

Contrary to all the blather about "free speech" surrounding Ahmadinejad's appearance at Columbia, universities in America do not invite speakers who do not perfectly mirror the political views of their America-hating faculties. Rather, they aggressively censor differing viewpoints and permit only a narrow category of speech on their campuses. Ask Larry Summers.

If a university invites someone to speak, you know the faculty agrees with the speaker. Maybe not the entire faculty. Some Columbia professors probably consider Ahmadinejad too moderate on Israel.

Columbia president Lee Bollinger claimed the Ahmadinejad invitation is in keeping with "Columbia's long-standing tradition of serving as a major forum for robust debate."

Except Columbia doesn't have that tradition. This is worse than saying "the dog ate my homework." It's like saying "the dog ate my homework" when you're Michael Vick and everyone knows you've killed your dog.

Columbia's "tradition" is to shut down any speakers who fall outside the teeny, tiny seditious perspective of its professors.

When Minutemen leader Jim Gilchrist and his black colleague Marvin Stewart were invited by the College Republicans to speak at Columbia last year, the tolerant, free-speech-loving Columbia students violently attacked them, shutting down the speech.

Imbued with Bollinger's commitment to free speech, Columbia junior Ryan Fukumori said of the Minutemen: "They have no right to be able to speak here."

Needless to say -- unlike Ahmadinejad -- the university had not invited the Minutemen. Most colleges and universities wouldn't buy a cup of coffee for a conservative speaker.

Fees for speakers who do not hate America are raised from College Republican fundraisers and contributions from patriotic alumni and locals who think students ought to hear at least one alternative viewpoint in four years of college.

And then college administrators turn a blind eye when liberal apple-polishers and suck-ups shut down the speech or physically attack the speaker.

Bollinger refused to punish the students who stormed the stage and violently ended the Minutemen's speech.

So the one thing we know absolutely is that Bollinger did not allow Ahmadinejad to speak out of respect for "free speech" because Bollinger does not respect free speech.

Only because normal, patriotic Americans were appalled by Columbia's invitation of Ahmadinejad to speak was Bollinger forced into the ridiculous position of denouncing Ahmadinejad when introducing him.

Then why did you invite him?

And by the way, I'll take a denunciation if college presidents would show up at my speeches and drone on for 10 minutes about "free speech" before I begin.

At Syracuse University last year, when liberal hecklers tried to shut down a speech by a popular conservative author of (almost!) six books, College Republicans began to remove the hecklers. But Dean of Students Roy Baker blocked them from removing students disrupting the speech on the grounds that removing students screaming during a speech would violate the hecklers' "free speech." They had a "free speech" right to prevent anyone from hearing a conservative's free speech.

That's what colleges mean by "free speech." (And by the way, my fingers are getting exhausted from making air quotes every time I use the expression "free speech" in relation to a college campus.)

"Tolerance of opposing views" means we have to listen to their anti-American views, but they don't have to hear our pro-American views. (In Washington, they call this "the Fairness Doctrine.")

Liberals are never called upon to tolerate anything they don't already adore, such as treason, pornography and heresy. In fact, those will often get you course credit.

At Ahmadinejad's speech, every vicious anti-Western civilization remark was cheered wildly. It was like watching an episode of HBO'S "Real Time With Bill Maher."

Ahmadinejad complained that the U.S. and a few other "monopolistic powers, selfish powers" were trying to deny Iranians their "right" to develop nukes.

Wild applause.

Ahmadinejad repeatedly refused to answer whether he seeks the destruction of the state of Israel.

Wild applause.

He accused the U.S. of supporting terrorism.

Wild applause.

Only when Ahmadinejad failed to endorse sodomy did he receive the single incident of booing throughout his speech.

Responding to a question about Iran's execution of homosexuals, Ahmadinejad said there are no homosexuals in Iran: "In Iran we don't have homosexuals, like in your country. In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have it."

I already knew that from looking at his outfit. If liberals want to run this guy for president, they better get him to "Queer Eye for the Islamofascist Guy."

Ellie