September 27, 2007
-
What is your opinion on the president of Iran visiting Columbia University in the U.S. this week?
I finally got a chance to watch his speech in its entirety so now I feel as if I have enough information to really answer this question. There’s a lot to say about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit in general and even more that can be said about the content of his speech but if I were to talk about it all I’d be writing all night and all day tomorrow. It’s late though, and I’m a little tired so I’ll try to touch only only what I think is the most important and the most controversial.
But first something that I don’t think is very important at all, the statement by the Columbia Dean that the university would even invite Hitler. This is just a sort of silly provacative thing to say that doesn’t mean very much but the philosopher in me finds it an interesting topic to examine.
I think a huge distinction would need to be made between inviting Hitler as a world leader before you are aware of the monstrous atrocities he’s committed or before he started on his massive genocidal campaign and afterwards.
If you only suspect that he might be a monster or might yet become a monster then I think it’s probably a good idea to allow him to speak. It isn’t even any special feature of universities to me that justifies this invitation. I would be just as fine with allowing him to speak before Congress or speak at the World Trade Center memorial or speak whereever he is willing to speak nd the people are willing to have him. And that’s for one very simple reason. The more you talk to him, the more you hear from him the more information you will have. Even knowing his lies is better than not knowing anything about him, for having him be a faceless entity in a far away land. That knowledge will help you to combat him should he end up confirming your suspicions. In any case it isn’t even any of our business as outside obsevers whether Hitler is allowed to speak in each of these venues. Rather it’s up to the communities involved to choose who they want to speak. If the majority of the Columbia University faculty, staff, and student body rejects Hitler’s presence than he should be rejected. I think it would be a good idea to let him speak anywhere and everywhere, and our government should try to encourage it, but nobody would say that we should force him to be allowed to speak in any praticular place.
On the other hand if he’s really Hitler and I mean by that that he’s a person who in the process of implementing policies to exterminate hundreds of thousands of innocent people and you know this without a shadow of a doubt.Well then I think your behavior toward him should be different. You still invite him into your country and to your school but you do so hoping he will be stupid enough to accept the invitation. And then when he does, well you arrest him. You make him face international justice. You can let him speak too, if you want. Maybe we’d learn something about the madness within the human mind. But regardless you have a moral obligation to stop this person at all costs. International agreements guaranteeing his safety would not be enough to protect him in my mind, nor would the desire for the free and open exchange of information. If the fate of so many thousands of people hang in the balance, you do what is necessary. The only possible reason I could see for letting Hitler go would be if you thought that for some reason by doing so you could set up his regime and make it more vulnerable and so save more lives. Even that would be a hard choice and you’d better be damned sure about it.
Do not get the wrong idea by me saying this. I do not in any way believe that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is comparable to Hitler. In fact it disturbs me greatly when people use this comparison. I think it is being used as a kind of political maneuver to try and create public fear and loathing toward Iran. As some have put it, with Saddam gone, the US needs another boogey man to inspire fear and so galvanize the public will in support of our continued global empire.
But I did bring up the Hitler case because I want to say that I understand why people are so upset by his presence. I understand why people hate it so and reject this idea of allowing him to speak. If you’ve bought into this idea that Ahmadinejad is or will soon be this generation’s Hitler, than of course you’re going to want him not to come. You’re going to think that if he comes and we don’t stop him, then we will be responsible for the future atrocities he continues to cause. We will be to blame. We had the power to stop him and out of some naive devotion to pretty little concepts of fairness and the pursuit of knowledge we let him go so he could monsrously slaughter and make miserable millions of people around the world.
Now there’s lots and lots of reasons why the Ahmadinejad/Hitler analogy just doesn’t make any sense. The biggest and most obvious being that he simply lacks the power in Iran that Hitler had in Germany. He doesn’t even control Iran’s military nor has he done anything to suggest that he intends to cease control of it any time soon. And he’s been in power for quite some time now. If we are looking for genocidal madman tendencies, why haven’t we really seen them yet? I’d even entertain the notion that maybe deep down in his heart he has a Hitler-like personality and Hitler-like aspirations, but if that’s the case then it is clear that the circumstnaces he is in completely neuter his ability to act upon those impulses. He wouldn’t be the first world leader who if given a chance would become a monstrous slaughterer of innocents but simply cannot because he lacks that level of power and control. This is a good thing. It means things are working. More or less. (Actually the only place a real Hitler could arise would be a nation of comparable power and influence as the United States. That’s the only analogous situation to the one Germany those days)
I really don’t believe Ahmadinejad’s Hitler-like at all though. I’m sure I could be mistaken, but from hearing his speech I did not get that impression. He seemed a well reasoned and mostly rational speaker. He clearly had some preconceived notions that were influencing his opinions that I believe are just not true nd his cultural heritage certainly influences his way of thinking, but all of that is to be expected. He carried himself so well during this speech giving event that I cant help but suspect that if he had gotten his wish to debate George W. Bush he’d probably wipe the floor with our President. But I don’t think saying that’s so much praise for the Iranian President as an indictment on the debating skills of our current President. The only thing that might hurt Ahmadinejad is his long and convoluted religious analogies that make little sense. Maybe those go over better in Iran but I don’t think American audiences would get very impressed by them in a debate setting.
But I didn’t want to talk about Mahmoud’s speaking skills. Rather the subject matter that interests me most about his visit is the most disappointing media coverage of it that we got.
At least we did get all of it televised on some stations and I think that’s great, but mostly we got summary stories of the event and what was said and those stories as they almost always are, were severely lacking.
First there was the coverage of the lead up to the event. This was very rabbel rousing coverage. The newscasters seemed to take great joy in airing every possible critique of Iran or its President and showcase dozens of people upset or annoyed at his impending presence. Almost nobody bothered to put anyone up in front of a camera who was willing to give even a lukewarm defense of anything at all having to do with Iran. Nobody said a word that might even cast into doubt any of the accepted truths about Iran. Rather we just heard again and again thos same old lines he wants “Israel wiped off the face of the map” and is “developing nuclear weapons” and is “a holocaust denier”, and of course how Iran is a “supporter of terrorist groups.”
There are reasons to dispute all of these claims as Ahmadinejad proved during his speech but not alterior perspective was aired on any news program I heard. Even more disturbing was the utter lack of anything resembling an attempt to give Americans a historical perspective on the regime of Iran. We heard nothing about how the current regime of Iran came into power, or about the previous brutal regime in place in part because of US intervention. We heard nothing about the wars between Iraq and Iran and how we, the US supplied Iraq in that conflict. We heard nothing even about how Ahmadinejad came to power and very little about any of the things Ahmadinejad did since coming to power. Instead all we hear about mostly are the things he’s *said*. It’s as if we care more about words than facts and deeds.
This kind of tunnel vision showed up in the presentation too. The best part of the entire event was the very very beginning of the Columbia University President’s speech where he airs specific complaints about specific human rights violations happening in Iran. He talks about scholars inprisoned and people killed by the Iranian regime and reports from Amnesty international. Unfortunately the President didn’t end his remarks there and gracefully ask his guest to respond. Instead he went off into crazy land trying to preach to his students and convince them to feel the same level of unthinking disgust and hatred toward their speaker as he no doubt feels. Maybe this is the way they treat all speakers at Columbia University. If so then so be it. That’s just one school I never want to attend. But if it isn’t, and I can’t imagine that it really is, that speech became increasing incredibly rude as it went along to the point that I could not help but feel embarrassd listening to it.
The media coverage of this introductory speech was really bad too. They kept repeating just a few of the President’s most biting words like “a petty and cruel dictator”. But none of the rest of the content of the University PResident’s speech was ever aired or discussed. Most importantly nobody seemed to want to talk about the beginning part which was actually quite good and true and reasonable. Talk about scholars inprisoned and detained I guess just isn’t as exciting as the stoy of “University President bashed Iranian President.” So all we get are the bashes.
The tunnell vision comes in when we look to the questions that are asked of the Iranian president. To no surprise it is almost an exact replica of the common media points, the only points being made in the news about Iran. In other words the questions are about: 1. nuclear weapons program. 2. destruction of Israel statements 3. holocaust denial statements, and 4. support for terrorist groups. These are the ‘hot’ topics I guess. The questions everyone wants the answer to. The topics sensationalized by the media. It really is no surprise that the Columbia university students happened to bring up those tired old points.
What would have been far more interesting and more effective is if they talked more about human rights, more about the reports of scholars being jailed and mistreated, the protests being shutdown, the treatment of opposition parties, and the reports by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. These are the questions about Iran that really matter. These are the things we should be trying to change about Iran, in my opinion. They are actually in the grand scheme of things far more important than the question of whether Iran’s nuclear program will continue or whether Akmadinejad really himself denied the holocaust or just complained about holocaust deniers being jailed. Seriously, who cares about that?
There was one question about human rights and it ironically was the very question that got the most news coverage, albeit biased and disturbing coverage. The question was about women’s rights and the treatment of homosexuals. This is a serious topic and one that I think should have been treated with the greatest deal of respect. But it became the joke of the day. The news coverage abandoned the question of how women and homosexuals are actually treated in Iran instead to focus on Ahmadinejad’s absurd statement that “we don’t have homsexuals in Iran”. Why? Because it illicits a laugh. It’s unclear to me whether this was quite calculated on Ahmadinejad’s part or just a part of his own natural biased and unusual religion influenced view of the world. But I suspect it was calculated. It seemed so effective at distracting people from the actual content of his response and keep people from focusing at the problem at hand.
Two other aspects of the news coverage bothered me. One was the description of Ahmadinejad as being “belligerent” and “combative” in many of the news reports. I watched it and I just didn’t see the combativeness in him. He seemed rather completely calm and in control. Too calm and in control. He deviated from his planned speech to chide his introducer for not treating him with due respect but he didn’t do it with any vehemance. There was nothing in his manner that seemed to suggest that he was angry or annoyed or even disturbed by these events. Indeed I would not be surprised if he was ecstatic. His anti-American support at home will undoubtedly climb when they see the rude introduction their president received at the hands of American intellectuals. In a sense ithat was a gift to Ahmadinejad. Anyway, the language in the coverage suggesting that Mahmoud was somehow combative or argumentative almost sounded like it was coverage written for the event before it even occurred as if it was reflecting what the Journalists expected to see rather than what was actually there.
The last was the lack of factual verification in the news coverage. There were some provocative claims made by both the Columbia University President and the Iranian President but there was noting in the news that talked about whether or to what extent these statements are true. Even something so simple and easy to clarify as the “wiped of the map” statement was completely unvetted in the media. It was taken to be true and exact even though a cursory search through the web puts it into doubt. When you take the entire statement in context it doesn’t mean quite the same thing and it doesn’t make anywhere near as good a sound bite. So they ignore it and let viewers just take the speakers words as they stand and it sucks. The Iranian president made accusations of the US supporting terrorist groups targetting Iran. That isn’t a subject important enough for someone to bother to try and look up the veracity of? That’s just ridiculous. And what about the numbers and documented cases of human rights abuse that the Columbian President aluded to? Not to mention the question of whether Iran is really funding terrorists. Surely these are things that we the viewers would want clarification on. Well if you are going to get it you better fire up your wikipedia because the main stream media apparently isn’t even going to bother to spend five minutes to enlighten you.
Anyway, overall the entire event was rather disappointing. While it was definitely interesting to hear the Iranian President speak, I can’t help but feel that very little was accomplished by it all. For an event meant to foister learning and understanding across cultures, I doubt that very many people gained in any amount of learning and understanding. People pretty much probably kept their own pre-existing beliefs about Iran and if anything the only benefit this event had was to help re-enforce in both countries the hatred of each other felt by the extemist elements in each. Iranians who hate the US will be able to point to this and say “look how intolerant those Americans are” and of course Americans get to hear all this unchallenged criticism of Iranian policy and get their rage and ferver built up. The belief that “Iran is evil” and “Iran is our enemy” solidifies in people’s mind however absurd those propositions really are.
Oh and on an aside I just don’t get the desire not to let Ahmadinejad visit Ground Zero. He was not behind 9/11. He wasn’t even in power and there’s no evidence he supports or did support those terrorist groups that were behind. Hamas and Hezbollah are very different from Al Qaeda. Why can’t we acknowledge the difference?
On the other hand I’ve got no problem at all with the protesters out in the streets protesting his presence. That’s just a part of a functioning democracy and it’s exactly the way it should be.
I just answered this Featured Question, you can answer it too!
