Monday, September 24, 2007

Columbia University Makes Headlines

Perhaps that was the idea after all.

Iran’s thug-in-chief is visiting ‘Satan’ and will receive a civilized welcome which he doesn’t deserve. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad should get a reception in hell but is received as a head of state by the United Nations; if there is justice in God’s world, he will be welcomed by the real Satan someday and without 72 virgins.

Columbia University invited the Iranian president to speak at the university and has been criticized by many for providing a public forum for him to spew his venom but Columbia President Lee Bollinger says the purpose is to inspire debate among the students; but acknowledges "Such a debate could not take place on a university campus in Iran." Besides stating the obvious, Bollinger seems to think this is reason enough to invite the Iranian dictator despite Columbia’s history of selectively seeking to "inspire debate".

Columbia refused to allow ROTC on campus or any U.S. military representatives. They also refused to let John McCain speak and drove Minuteman founder Jim Gilchrist out of the building before he even had a chance to deliver his message. Yet they are eager to hear the words of Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, the leader of a country that supplies our enemies in Iraq with lethal weapons with which to kill American soldiers, treats its own citizens like controlled robots and its women worse. If all that is not enough to regurgitate yesterday’s food, Columbia University said it would welcome any notable figure visiting the United States — even Adolph Hitler himself — to speak to students and faculty at the Ivy League university. Can you imagine, a school of the prestige, though undeserved, of Columbia University says it’s appropriate to invite dictatorial scum like Ahmadi-Nejad and Hitler but not the likes of McCain and Gilchrist? The U.S Military ROTC is not acceptable but sworn killers of Americans are acceptable to Columbia because they "inspire debate". Unfortunately this is what American academia has become; and they are responsible for teaching young Americans.

Ironically, Columbia University defends their stand against the military because of the military’s "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy on gays. Yet they invite a dictator who executes homosexuals for being gay in his own country and says Hitler, who did the same thing in Germany, would have been also invited.

Columbia University’s agenda has less to do with gays or any other minority group than it has to do with promoting an anti-America agenda. Columbia would refuse to allow a visit by an American war hero, but welcomes a visit by the commander of the notorious Republican Guard in Iran. Columbia's actions will only serve to give more support to the enemy and too much of that kind of support is already being given by Democrats in Congress and the liberal media.

In a time of a war waged by propaganda to elicit the most world opinion, patriotic common sense dictates that providing a forum for inflicting enemy propaganda on America's young is not in the best interests of our country and should not be encouraged and advanced by our universities. It's no wonder that Columbia University is the object of much criticism by many.

Nonetheless there are those that would excuse Columbia. Perhaps the most reasoned reaction to the Columbia Ahmadi-Nejad invitation was by Minuteman founder and President Jim Gilchrist who is an ardent supporter of the First Amendment. Gilchrist said he now actually backs the university's decision to host the Iranian president. "I'm defending his appearance," he said. "I think he should speak. To say no, he cannot speak, is to support exactly the same thing that happened to me." He believes Columbia's administrators are good about fostering free speech but give too much power to "radical" groups in determining who gets a forum on campus.

Is Gilchrist being too 'reasonable'? Perhaps, but he is a true American and respects the First Amendment. Unfortunately Columbia allows its radicals to decide who is entitled to First Amendment treatment.

1 comment:

Ben McCall said...

Is this proposed legislation not just another example of a political party pandering to a block of voters, in that the legislation would provide no more protection to gays than existing legislation? Is this all our democracy has become - creating laws for appearances sake only. In that this Bill is simply store-front legislation, at this point the primary political desire of the Democrats would be for the Republicans to stymie progress on passage, or better yet for a Bush veto.
My opinion.