President Bollinger's Criticism of Ahmadinejad Is Not Evidence of Academic Freedom at Columbia U

My wife's pal, Mary Anne, was going to visit us in Manhattan last night but couldn't because the streets were too jammed. At the invitation of Columbia's President Lee Bollinger, Iran's President Ahmadinejad was in town. As a result, Mary Anne couldn't find a taxi. It's been so long since she ventured into a subway that she forgot that she could take the cross-town shuttle. So she cancelled her visit. Unfortunately, President Ahmadinejad was not asked to cancel his.

I have previously blogged about President Bollinger's failure to protect Jim Gilchrist when student-thugs stopped Gilchrist from speaking at Columbia. President Bollinger has not invited any high profile conservatives or libertarians to Columbia, rather following Columbia's long tradition of paying special attention to the children of German romanticism, to include Nazis in the 1930s and Ahamdinejad now, and ignoring or suppressing the children of Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson.

Having invited President Ahmadinejad and having been subjected to criticism for doing so, President Bollinger aimed to show the world how robust academic debate at Columbia can be. He lanced President Ahmadinejad. The Chronicle of Higher Education (paid access)notes that President Bollinger called President Ahmadinejad "fanatical". President Ahmadinejad replied that President Bollinger had violated the rules of hospitality. President Ahmadinejad is apparently a supporter of academic collegiality, at least when he's not exterminating dissidents.

The New York Sun's reaction to President Bollinger's introduction was mixed. On the one hand, the Sun regrets that Columbia gave goose-stepping German romantics, common among Columbia's faculty, an opportunity to applaud at Ahmadinejad's holocaust denial. The quack academics' support "will be a gift to him that keeps on giving". The Sun argued that President Bollinger aimed to use Ahmadinejad's presence as a "teaching moment" especially in light of the widespread anti-Semitism among the Columbia faculty. President Bollinger strongly criticized President Ahmadinejad's holocaust denial conference and expressed "revulsion" for what President Ahmadinejad stands. According to the Sun, President Bollinger put Columbia' anti-Semitic Middle Eastern Studies department on the spot.

President Bollinger also criticized the incarceration of Kian Tajbakhsh, an Iranian-American employee of the left-wing Open Society Institute. President Bollinger also announced that Columbia was offering Tajbakhsh a teaching job.

President Bollinger's response to President Ahmadinejad raises several questions. First, why so much attention from the president of Columbia to the crackpot ideas of President Ahmadinejad? Such attention would be unnecessary were Columbia University committed to academic freedom. Were conservatives, libertarians and a range of views given free rein at Columbia, which suffers from the dominance of goose-stepping neo-German-romantics, then President Ahmadinejad wouldn't require the university president's attention. Second, from the standpoint of intellectual import, President Ahmadinejad deserves less, not more, attention from President Bollinger than does Jim Gilchrist. Third, there were a number of Ahmadinejad supporters in the audience, obviously a fringe, ideologically-obsessed segment of the public. Given this skewness, is Columbia University an institution that can be taken seriously?

Courtesy of Larwyn, quite a few bloggers have nailed this issue nicely. In Slate, Anne Appelbaum argues

"the novelty of Ahmadinejad's appearance at Columbia lies in the fact that he wanted to make that speech at all. Though a blustering Columbia dean foolishly told Fox News that "if he were willing to engage in a debate and a discussion," the university would happily invite Adolf Hitler to speak, too, it's impossible, in fact, to imagine the Führer accepting."

Hitler was really pre-television, while Ahmadinejad is post-World Wide Web. Perhaps Ahamdinejad's media strategy has more in common with Abraham Lincoln's. Lincoln nailed the presidential nomination when he came to New York to speak at Cooper Union. Whom or what country is President Ahmadinejad aiming to nail?

Arthur Herman in the New York Post calls Columbia's invitation to Ahmadinejad "abject, squalid and shameless", after a cowardly resolution by Oxford University's debating union in 1933 that it would not fight Hitler. Herman points out that Columbia bans ROTC but not President Ahamdinejad. While President Bollinger argues that a university is a forum for argument, Ahmadinjead is not a theorist, but a real-world murderer. Herman is in effect suggesting that the best people to argue the question of drug illegalization are not drug dealers and users, but people who have studied the problem academically. Or the right people to argue the case against the death penalty are not convicted murderers, and there is little or no free speech added to an invitation for a serial killer to speak on campus. The left views President Ahmadinejad as emblematic of an anti-capitalist struggle, and so implicitly applauds the incarceration of journalists, the holocaust denial and the thinly veiled threats of nuclear aggression.

Merv of PrairiePundit calls President Bollinger's invitation to President Ahmadinejad "corruption of academic culture" and "brainless activisim, not academic freedom". He notes that "professors seek publicity, not freedom". Prairiepundit mocks the "punk activism poisoning Ivy League faculties". Merv, quoting David Limbaugh, points out that the First Amendment does not oblige Columbia to invite President Ahmadinjead. He notes that "Contrary to the left's claims, there is nothing we can learn from Ahmadinejad that we don't already know -- at least not in this forum."

In contrast, Jules Crittenden raves about President Bollinger's speech. He notes:

"Among the many parts I liked, is this part where in plain terms he calls Iran the enemy in Iraq, and asks A’jad why he’s supporting terrorists who kill American troops. How come everyone else seems to have such a hard time saying that?"

Rick Moran of American Thinker quotes Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post calling Columbia's invitation to Ahmadinejad a disagrace:

"THE PROBLEM with Columbia's action, the reason that there can be no moral justification for the university's decision, is because by inviting Ahmadinejad to campus, Columbia has made the pros and cons of genocide a legitimate subject for debate. By asking Ahmadinejad challenging questions, Bollinger has reduced the right of the Jewish people to live to a question of preferences."

Moran goes on to quote several neo-German Romanticists such as Ezra Klein, who asks "When did America become so weak, so insecure, that we mistrust our capacity to converse with potentially hostile world leaders?" Perhaps an invitation to a university is unnecessary for conversation, though. And as Merv of Prairiepundit points out, we already know what President Ahmadinejad thinks. Perhaps Klein's neo-German-romantic appetite for holocaust denial was whetted during the Iranian holcaust denial conference last year. Or perhaps Klein want to see more evidence. Professor Julian Cole adds:

"Taking potshots at a bantam cock of a populist like Ahmadinejad is actually a way of expressing another, deeper anxiety: fear of Iran's rising position as a regional power and its challenge to the American and Israeli status quo."

Well, yeah. Hitler was a "bantam cock of a populist" too, Professor Cole. Shouldn't Neville Chamberlain have been afraid him? Or was Chamberlain right to follow an appeasement strategy?

Finally, Dinocrat quotes the lies about President Ahmadinejad's speech in the Iranian news agency, IRNA:

"…The audience on repeated occasion applauded Ahmadinejad..."

Queen of Collegiality: O'Malley Threatens Karkhanis with Law Suit

Professor Susan O'Malley has simultaneously served as an officer of CUNY's faculty union, the Professional Staff Congress, and also as president of the CUNY faculty senate. In the two roles, which seem to conflict (faculty senate = employer; faculty union = employee representative), Professor O'Malley took a public position on the promotion application of Professor KC Johnson. This seemed to me not only inappropriate, but a breach of her fiduciary duty to Professor Johnson. I raised this issue with New York's Public Employee Relations Board, but New York's PERB was not interested even though the Taylor Law specifically prohibits management-dominated unions.

Professor Johnson ultimately won his promotion on appeal, and he is now probably the best (or one of a few best) known author(s) at Brooklyn College, with his recent book Until Proven Innocent. At the time of his promotion battle Johnson had much better credentials than most of the faculty deciding his case, yet the issue of Johnson's "collegiality" was the academic Babbitts' rallying cry. Professor O'Malley was one of those criticizing Professor Johnson.

One would therefore expect Professor O'Malley to attempt to resolve her ongoing conflict with Professor Karkhanis in a "collegial" manner. Perhaps she might write a letter to Karkhanis; invite him out for lunch; or ask Karkhanis to serve on an academic committee. But no, Professor O'Malley's definition of "collegiality" is: if someone disagrees with you, then try to fire them (Johnson). If that doesn't work, send them a lawyer's letter (Karkhanis).

O'Malley's actions once again demonstrate that those who raise issues of "collegiality" in faculty personnel committees are often vicious liars who aim to deflect their true, defamatory intent.

The website of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education reports that:

"CUNY professor and former chair of the Faculty Senate Susan O’Malley was the subject of a few issues of The Patriot Returns last spring. In the March 12 issue of The Patriot Returns, Karkhanis wrote an article called “MOHAMMED ON HER MIND!,” with the subheading, “O’MALLEY’S OBSESSION WITH FINDING JOBS FOR TERRORISTS.” Karkhanis refers in that issue to O’Malley’s attempt, at a Faculty Senate meeting, to find a job at CUNY for Mohammed Yousry, who was convicted of conspiring in the plot to bomb the World Trade Center in 1993. Citing Faculty Senate meeting minutes, Karkhanis wrote that O’Malley “was not going to rest until she got this convicted terrorist a job.” Karkhanis was not the only one to criticize O’Malley—FIRE Adviser and Phi Beta Cons contributor Candace de Russy blogged about O’Malley’s advocacy for hiring Yousry and about Karkhanis’ coverage on March 26"

The letter alleges that Karkhanis's remarks about O'Malley are defamatory, yet O'Malley is a tenured academic likely nearing retirement who is likely entitled to a hefty, low-tier CUNY pension (the earlier cohorts of CUNY faculty enjoyed much more generous pensions than the later ones). Since there are no damages, the only purpose of a law suit is to suppress Karkhanis's speech and to intimidate him. The law suit threat is not only evidence of O'Malley's lack of collegiality, but her intent to suppress all who disagree with her left-wing views.

Lee Bollinger Should Invite Jim Gilchrist to Speak at Columbia University

President Ahmadinejad is to speak at Columbia University. However, last year a riot of left wing student-bigots prevented Jim Gilchrist from speaking at Columbia University. Columbia failed to protect Mr. Gilchrist. Although I would not object to Mr. Ahmadinejad's speaking at any university,* Lee Bollinger and Columbia have failed to provide an even playing field or a forum that supports academic freedom. I have sent the following e-mail to Mr. Bollinger:

Dear President Bollinger: I just received an e-mail, an excerpt of which is below, which notes that while Columbia has invited Mr. Ahmadinejad it has suppressed a presentation by Jim Gilchrist. I am sure that you have not personally encouraged this, but you have through inaction permitted one-sided free speech for the left, and “politically correct” suppression of those who support US interests and freedom. I urge you to do a better job, not of stopping Ahmadinejad from speaking, but of creating a public impression on all ideological sides that you are truly encouraging academic freedom rather than a suppressive left wing ideology.

Sincerely,

Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D., ‘91

>”University President Nicholas Murray Butler, who invited Nazi ambassador Hans Luther to campus in December 1933, insisting, against student protests, that Luther "'represented the government of a friendly people,' and therefore was 'entitled to be received . . . with the greatest courtesy and respect.'"
*****
Butler was Columbia U pres from 1902-1945. If they could, they would have had Hitler on campus in 1933, and Jefferson Davis during the Civil War. They just rejected an invitation for the return engagement of Jim Gilchrist and now they are inviting Ahmadinejad. Bollinger made a statement and is going to ask him some tough questions. Really? Columbia has just hit bottom.”

*My beloved wife, Freda, debated this point with me after two martinis at the Bear Restaurant in Woodstock, NY. She may have a point that inviting a holocaust denier like Ahmadinejad to a university is a bit over the top. But I do think that even the fringe views of despicable bigots and holocaust deniers like Mr. Ahmadinejad should not be suppressed but rather refuted.

Break out the Bubbly: Fed Cuts Fed Funds Rate .5% to 4.75%

About 20 minutes ago Bloomberg television reported that the Fed cut its benchmark rate by .5% to 4.75%. This cut was on the high end of its expected actions. The Dow ended the day 335 points higher (I think it had been down about 40 points before the announcement). As I blogged yesterday, cutting reinforces Ben Bernanke's and the Fed's new role of casino manager who, by selling ever more poker chips, takes ever greater risks of a run on the casino, a run which would put many Americans into the poor house. Of course, there are two effects of increasing the number of poker chips, or should I call them dollars. The first is a run up in asset valuations (because low interest rates increase the present value of earnings and because firms need to pay less when they borrow). In the past, this lead to an increase in employment, but in recent years has stimulated cost cutting as executives have been keen to boost stock valuations and so move their plants overseas. The second is inflation. Since the poor consume their income, inflation hurts them the most. Since the wealthy hold stocks and real estate, asset run ups help them. The result is increasing income inequality.

The MSM avoids discussion of this tautological, rather obvious relationship among inflation, asset run ups and income inequality, mainly because Wall Street and other wealthy asset holders don't like to admit that they are wealthy because of government welfare via the Fed. For example, the Economist of September 15-21, 2007 (p. 15) carries a leader that emphasizes the short run relationship between job creation and economic growth on the one hand and interest rates on the other. To its credit, the Economist argues that

"lower interest rates will not achieve all that much...it would be irresponsible of them to slash the Fed funds rate...Nor will a moderately lower Fed funds rate do much to stop the economy from slowing...History suggest (Wall Street) may not (react modestly to the size of the cut)"

But the Economist, friend of the City of London and Wall Street, avoids discussion of the implications of rate cuts for income inequality.