Notes On My Ahmadinejadventure

(Note: I apologize for the un-timely nature of this blog post, given that the whole world has already posted about this, but I'm trying to be thorough and, well, that takes time.)

Wow.

I'd been thinking the actual Ahmadinejad talk would be an anti-climax, but... wow.

Ahmadinejad entered first to confusion ("Is he that one with the beard?") and then to a surprising amount of applause. A whole section even gave him a standing ovation. However, it was nothing compared to the huge round of applause Bollinger received upon his entrance. His speech, simply put, was fantastic. He began with a defense of his decision, claiming that deciding to listen to someone like Ahmadinejad does not imply that we agree, or that we are weak or naive. He told those who disagreed with his choice that he understood their position and found it reasonable. One of the important parts of free speech is debating free speech itself, including its limits. Still, he stressed that this speech was not about any of Ahmadinejad's rights, but about our right to listen. Then Bollinger dropped his first bomb, saying that we needed to understand "the mind of evil." Yes, he used the E-word. It caused a lot of murmurs through the audience.

Bollinger next outlined the tough issues he wanted Ahamadinejad to address:

-The crackdown on scholars, activists, and writers - In specific, Bollinger called for the release of Kian Tajbakhsh, a Columbia graduate who was imprisoned in Iran. He was set free a few days ago, seemingly in response to our invitation, but he is apparently stil under house arrest. Bollinger demanded his safe return to Columbia, where he apparently now has a job as a professor. Ahmadinejad never responded to this, but I suspect we'll be seeing Tajbakhsh soon. If this guy goes free, I think that alone is enough to justify this whole event.

-The execution of minors and the violation of civil rights that public hanging represents.

-His dispute with the west and the way most Iranian feel it's overshadowing the terrible situation within Iran.

-His Holocaust Denial- Another bombshell, Bollinger said Ahmadinejad's view on "the most documented event in history" shows he is "either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated." Whammy.

-His opposition to Israel- Apparently Columbia has over 800 graduates in Israel?

-Reports of Iran funding Iraqi insurgents.

-His claims of wanting nuclear power for peaceful reasons and the dissonance with his constant threats of military action.

Bollinger had another zinger, telling Ahmadinejad that his actions "exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator." He finished by saying that he doubted Ahmadinejad had the intellectual courage to answer these questions rather than hiding behind his fanatical viewpoint, but he hoped he would. It's hard to dislike Prezbo after that speech (not that I did before), because frankly, he's a supreme badass. He had a lot to prove with that speech and he hit every ball out of the park.

Ahmadinejad's speech was, well, weaker, but very interesting. He opened first with a prayer from the Koran and a few complaints, namely that Bollinger was a bad host; in addition to being rude, Prezbo had also "vaccinated" us to oppose Ahmadinejad. The spin engine officially running, Ahmadinejad began his speech which, oddly, focused on education.

I'm not really going to say too much about his speech, because most of it was circular and oddly-phrased. It's been said repeatedly that the goal of this event was to open dialogue. Ahmadinejad may have been spinning like mad but his pre-written speech was very telling. Heavily steeped in biblical language and using the word "science" haphazardly, Ahmadinejad's language sounded less like a speech from now and more like pre-Newtownian natural philosophy. It was also biblical in its utter lack of structure. There was no logical flow, just roundabout restating of his main point. I think sometimes we forget that even the less fundamentalist Arabs are still heavily influenced by the Koran and its strange logic.

Another explanation is that Ahmadinejad was just lulling us into a sort of trance. Eventually I found myself thinking, "Yeah, he's just saying obvious things that I have to agree with." As a result, when about three-quarters of the way through his speech he suddenly, and vaguely at first, began a tirade against America, it took a moment for me to realize I no longer agreed with him. Next though you know he's talking about how corrupt people (read: America) are using science and wisdom to mislead others for personal gain, by creating an insecure atmosphere and excuse wrongdoings.

He finally got to the real meat of his speech toward the end, first talking about nukes. They're bad uses of science because they are bad for the world, and because we (the west) have created a monopoly on science by barring Iran from starting a nuclear program. He moved on to discuss his holocaust denial, prefacing it by saying that his "main job is a university instructor." This was important because he framed his holocaust denial as merely looking at the Holocaust from different perspectives. In addition, he claimed his primary issue with the Holocaust was that the Palestinians were paying for something that happened in Europe.

He returned to the nuclear issue, this time more aggressively, saying Iran has cooperated with inspectors and none have found any evidence of using the nuclear research to create weapons. At that point, the bell rang signaling that Ahmadinejad was out of time, but he ignored it, until it rang a second time and Dean Coatsworth stopped him. This was another shrewd move on his part. It made him look like a martyr, being shut down by the mean Americans and their biased debate rules.

This is a good time as any to mention that I was SHOCKED by the amount of support Ahmadinejad had in the audience. Sure, some of them were plants, but there were definitely a fair amount of people in the audience who applauded him. Whether it was because he made arguably true statements about America in the midst of evading his own issues or because these people generally supported him is hard to say. Either way, sorta scary. On the other hand, a lot of people were booing him. I just find booing kinda distasteful in general. It really doesn't add anything to a dialogue and usually just comes off as rude.

Anyway, then it was time for the question and answer session. I'm gonna do this in notes format... well, sorta.

Q: Do you seek the destruction of Jews and Israel?
A: We love every nation. Also, we have lots of Jews in Iran and always have a Jewish representative in the government, but we need to let Palestinians solve issues for themselves and that is why we call for a free referendum in the Middle East to decide Israel's future without interference from the west.

Follow-up Q: We'd like a more specific answer, and a simple yes or no will suffice. (I felt that was sort of tacky)
A: Not a yes or no, but more of the same.

Q: Why is your government providing aid to terrorists and will you stop?
A: If someone set off bombs around you, would you award them or call them a terrorist? We have known terrorism in Iran. The past Iranian President and Prime Minister were killed in a terrorist attack. There have been over 4000 killed by one group (he didn't mention which group, anybody know?) and America is supporting them. We were the first to oppose terrorism. We need to eradicate the root causes of terrorism.

Q: How can you deny the Holocaust?
A: What is so bad about asking questions? I am a researcher, I just want to research.(except longer winded)

Follow-up: But we have established FACTS.
A: More of the same.

Q: What are your views on Homosexuals and Women? Why do you mistreat them and execute them and such?
A: We have lots of freedoms. Two of our vice-presidents are women and we have hundreds of female scientists. Our nation is free. We have an 80-90% voter turnout which is the best in the world (Is this true?)
As for executions, don't you have capital punishment? We execute drug traffickers because they are destroying our country. (then there's a long rant about drug trafficking).

Follow-up: We weren't talking about drugs, but about homosexuals and women.
A: And here's what's become the big pull-away Ahmadinejad quote: "In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country. We don't have that phenomenon. Who said that?" But women are respected. Families are happy when they have girls instead of boys. Girls are the best of God's creations and we treat them so well that they have less legal responsibilities.

(I think part of the problem is that these two issues are always brought up together when in fact they're very different. Ahmadinejad is actually historically pretty good to Iranian women, but is frequently overpowered by the Ayatollah, which was the case when he allowed them to attend football games. While the women's rights issue may be a large one in Iran, it isn't really something you can hold against Ahmadinejad. On the other hand, his regime has been hanging homosexuals. That is something you can hold against him.

Okay, back to his words, not mine.)

Q: What did you hope to accomplish in coming here? What would you have said if you had been able to go to the World Trade Center site?
A: I came here because I was invited. In Iran you respect guests. At the World Trade Center site I wanted to show respect and sympathy. Why would you think that's an insult. It's a pessimistic approach. If we looked at the real causes of 9/11 and put it all together we can fix those problems.

Q: The nuclear weapons question.
A: The same answer he gave before, except a bit more nuanced. This is a political issue not a legal issue. There is no indication that our nuclear program is anything but peaceful.

Q: Is Iran prepared to open discussions with the US?
A: From the start, we have been ready to negotiate with all countries. We want talks, with mutual respect. We had three rounds of talks about Iraq with Bush. Wants to debate Bush in the UN but Bush won't.

At the end, he thanked us all and invited us to come speak at Iranian Universities. Coatsworth ended with a snarky remark about Ahmadinejad not answering questions well and that was that. Ahmadinejad dodged questions deftly, but I think his answers were very telling. People have said he made his speech to his supporters but I really think he tailored it to the audience, spinning his answers into attacks against U.S. policies that liberals are (or should be) uncomfortable with, for example our controlling who is allowed to have a nuclear program, our wiretapping, our presence in Iraq (implying that we are the real terrorists), our capital punishment system, etc. He gets us agreeing with him so that we forget he's not even answering the question he's supposed to be. That said, I think this was a clear failure for him and reports, besides Bill O'Reilly of course, seem to suggest that people have really come around and are more supportive of the event after the fact.

I'm going to look at my video footage tomorrow and see if there's anything worth posting but I doubt it.

For now, though, Sam Roberts, citzen journalist, signing off.

All Quiet on the Westside Front

So I got up bright and early, video camera in hand, prepared to do some citizen journalism at the crazy protests.

Except... there aren't any. Right now it's just a lot of frustrated reporters trying and failing to do man on the street stuff and a couple people who are already in line to get their seats (doors aren't until 11, though).

In the place of protesters we've got posters and counter-posters and counter-everything posters. I've been taking some pictures of my favorite ones, which'll be up when I get back to my own computer and can upload them (I'm in Butler right now.)

Basically, the mood right now is that oh-so-cliche-calm before the storm, just with a few people frantically trying to find that one spot that still hasn't been covered in a poster.

I'll keep you all informed.

Craziness

If haven't been following the Bwog, you really should be. Their coverage of the Ahmadinejad event the growing protests has been excellent. Apparently, things are really getting intense. They estimate there will be ten thousand protesters tomorrow. Yes, TEN. THOUSAND.

I'm going try and get some footage of the insanity with my video camera tonight and tomorrow. Obviously I'll post anything good and I'll definitely have a post-speech entry, so watch out for that too.

A Different Perspective on Notecards

So Bwog compiled a list of all the statements student groups have been making about Ahmadinejad. For me, one thing stands out. It seems a lot of people are upset because students will not be asking questions directly. Instead, they will be submitting questions on notecards; the moderator will then select questions from this pool and ask them.

The objection stems from the notion that this is a form of censorship, cutting us out of the conversation. The student leaders are using it as evidence that Columbia is not as interested in discourse as it pretends to be. I disagree. I think it's actually an excellent choice for this particular speaker for several reasons:

1. Ahamdinejad is a smooth speaker and spinster. Columbia students, on the other hand, may be incredibly smart, but they're also frequently overly emotional speakers. I remember a few years ago when John Ashcroft came to Columbia. Despite a number of hard questions, he came out looking better than the students because he kept his composure unlike the students who shouted and generally came off as somewhat barbaric. I think Ahmadinejad will inspire feelings significantly more intense than those Ashcroft inspired and it would be a terrible shame if he came out of this as the reasonable one in the debate. Having the moderator ask the questions ensures that they will be posed calmly and that focus will be on the thrust of the question rather than the anger of the questioner.

2. Even though half of the time allotted is reserved for questions, there will undoubtedly be too little time for all the questions people want to ask. I would rather the best questions get asked than those of the students who rush the mics right when they open up. Those will probably be the angriest students, and therefore the ones most likely to pose poorly-thought out questions that are nothing more than thinly-veiled statements of hatred. I'd rather hear from the more contemplative students. Notecards ensure that both get a fair opportunity to have their questions answered, which can only result in better questions.

I'll admit, all of this rests on Columbia being truly devoted to asking the tough questions and really challenging Ahmadinejad, but everything Bollinger's said suggests that he really wants to take Ahmadinejad to the mat. With that goal in mind, posing questions via notecards can only help.

Ahmadinejad: The Reckoning

So a year later, Ahmadinejad is actually coming to Columbia. If you wanna buy tickets, here's a link.

I've already written a post about this topic, but I do think it's funny how this year the protests seem to be, well, nonexistent. With any luck, it'll stay that way and we'll actually get to hear him talk. It should be a really fascinating talk.

(On a unrelated note, how have I never need a Columbia label in this blog? Or one for politics? And yet I have "making fun of study abroad kids"? WTF, me?)

UPDATE: Wow, I didn't even mean to, but it seems I used the exact same picture as The Bwog. Great minds think alike?

Bollinger's Blunder Teaches Bad Lesson - Opinion

So there's an opinion piece in the Spec today about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's potential talk at Columbia. For those of you who weren't aware, The Dean of SIPA invited him to come speak this past Friday, but he wasn't able to, supposedly because of security reasons.

I think it goes without saying that everyone was up in arms over the whole thing. We had the "Ahmadinejad's an evil dictator and letting him near our campus is wrong" camp facing off against the "free speech is vital, even if the guy's an evil dictator" camp. It should be obvious which side I support, but if it isn't, I'll just say it straight up: There really isn't a single good reason why we shouldn't have had Ahmadinejad speak here.

The thing is, talk is just talk. It's not like Ahmadinejad wanted to parade his army down college walk, rounding up the Jews and summarily executing them. He's just talking, so what are we so afraid of? It seems as if the students opposed to him speaking are terrified that his rhetoric will turn them into anti-semitic supporters of nuclear terrorism. Or perhaps it's the condescending version and they're afraid that the his rhetoric will turn their stupid classmates into said anti-semitic terrorists. Either way, it's an embarassingly pessimistic view to take towards students who supposedly number among the smartest in the country.

But today's opinion piece is slightly different. Here, the author argues that we already know where Ahmadinejad stands and don't need to hear his speech. This is correct, to an extent. We do know where Ahmadinejad stands and that many of his beliefs are so contrary to our own that it seems as if there is no way he can justify them. Still, I think to simply call him evil and dismiss his views is fruitless. Evil is an easy word to label someone with and ignores the fact that the things people believe all stem from somewhere. It's not a question of understanding Ahmadinejad's beliefs, but understanding why he has those beliefs. Once we understand where his hatred comes from, we may be able to address it in a productive way. We tell Ahminadejad that he must change his ways, but there's no reason for him to listen to us if we don't listen to him too.