Help
Sign In
integral theory
November 2007 
Response To Ahmadinejad At Columbia University: Hot Or Not?
Posted on Oct 3rd, 2007
by 
scotty
scotty
Below is a link to a transcript of the recent appearance of Iran's President Ahmadinejad at Columbia University and what ensued:
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/202820.php
So what I'm trying to figure out is: was this a classic example of leftie, indignant, inclusive-intolerance that should be ripped a new one; or a case of higher centered willingness to "speak truth to power"?
sp
Access: Public
I'm glad someone wrote about this. When I first heard about it, it just sort of vaguely bothered me, probably because it took place, not in vacuum, but against the backdrop of this drumbeat for war with Iran.
When I thought about it more I realized what bothered me. 'Speaking truth to power” implies some sort of intellectual and moral courage. But Ahmadinejad is a minor-league George Bush. He'd be as bad as Bush if he had the power, but he doesn't. Bush hurts more people in a week than Ahmadinejad does all year. Would Columbia's president say something like that about the George Bush? Of course not. For that matter, would he do this to China's premier? Of course not. And the reason why he wouldn't do it in either case is that there would be consequences. There are no consequences for speaking way to Ahmadinejad. That's not courage, it's bullying.
Second, this was not a man stepping out of the crowd to speak truth to power. The day before the front page of the NY Daily News shouted “The Evil has Landed”. People were lining up to hurl verbal stones at Ahmadinejad. The guy at Columbia was piling on, not trying to provoke intellectual discourse.
Finally, they didn't each arrive at an independent forum where Columbia's president stepped forward to confront Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad was Columbia's invited guest. That's different somehow, and the rudeness was just bad form.
The whole thing stinks out loud.
Agreed. There was a way to call Ahmadinejad out on the hurt that he has caused in a stern but even keeled way; but the focus had to be the wrongs and naming them, not the man and demeaning him. This whole episode struck me as a race to indignance that ruined any hope of forwarding what glimmer of a discussion might have existed.