Sept. 28, 2007

Watch Out Whom You Invite to Speak ...

It’s fair to say that Columbia University has heard more than an earful over its decision to offer a speaking platform this week to Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Reaction ranged widely, with many condemning the university for inviting the controversial leader, others praising Columbia’s president, Lee C. Bollinger, for sternly rebuking the Iranian president while he looked on, and some doing both. Opinions flowed freely.

Looking for a job?

See all 288 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 2,370
Administrative: 2,056
Executive: 153
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

On Wednesday, one vehement critic, with a prominent platform of his own, went a large step further. U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, a Californian who is also a longshot candidate (to be generous) for the Republican nomination for president, introduced legislation that would “prohibit federal grants to or contracts with Columbia University.” The text of the legislation — which college officials called “unprecedented” — was not yet available on any government Web sites.

Hunter, who was en route to Baltimore for a Republican presidential debate that lacked the four leading candidates, could not be reached for comment Thursday. But in a news release he issued Wednesday about the legislation, which he dubbed the “Restoring Patriotism to America’s Campuses Act,” the Congressman contrasted Columbia’s willingness to play host to Ahmadinejad to its anti-military stance, as Hunter characterized it, regarding the Reserve Officer Training Corps and military recruiters.

“By hosting President Ahmadinejad, Columbia University openly insulted the thousands of servicemen and women serving in Iraq, many of whom are direct targets of the munitions that he is sending across the border,” Hunter said. “This insult is compounded by the fact that Columbia University dissolved its Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program and continues to openly protest the presence of military recruiters on campus. It is troubling to see that a university such as Columbia, with a reputation as one of America’s leading universities, is more receptive to America’s adversaries than it is to the military that protects its right to free speech and assembly.”

Hunter, who described himself in the news release as a “strong proponent of free speech,” characterized the legislation as an “appropriate and reasonable response to an institution that welcomes a sponsor of terrorism while saying no to our nation’s collegiate military training and recruitment program.” He added: “If Columbia University wants to continue hosting our adversaries while turning its back on our military, then U.S. taxpayers should not be required to support the university’s programs.”

Last week, before Ahmadinejad’s speech, Hunter had called Columbia’s invitation to the Iranian leader a “slap in the face of the 165,000 U.S. troops serving in Iraq,” adding: “If the left-wingers of academia will not support our troops, they, in the very least, should not support our adversaries.”

Columbia officials, not surprisingly, declined comment on the introduction of the legislation, since they had not seen the text. But a spokesman, Robert Hornsby, said university officials had received a “mixture” of responses to Monday’s event “across the spectrum of opinions, some supportive and some not.”

Hornsby said he could not say how much Columbia receives in federal aid. But information on Columbia’s Web site shows that the university had $458 million in federal research expenditures in 2005, the latest year for which data were available, including $319 million from the Department of Health and Human Services, most of which presumably came from the National Institutes of Health. Throw in federal financial aid (if that were included) and other support, and that’s serious money.

Terry W. Hartle, senior vice president for government and public affairs at the American Council on Education, said the legislation seemed “more about Republican presidential politics than a serious piece of legislation.”

But Hartle said he was still deeply troubled by the legislation, which he described as unprecedented. “I am unaware of a similar proposal to deny any federal funds to an institution of higher education,” even in eras, such as during the Vietnam, when some lawmakers were plenty unhappy with what was unfolding on campuses.

Hunter’s proposal “reflects the increasing willingness of some in the federal government to involve it in the affairs of American campuses,” Hartle said. Given that the State Department had granted Ahmadinejad a visa to enter the country and President Bush had “said he respected Columbia’s right to issue the invitation,” Hartle said, “it’s hard to understand why this would be a matter for such a draconian Congressional proposal.”

— Doug Lederman

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

Strong Proponent of Free Speech?

You can only be a “strong proponent of free speech” if you are willing to defend the right of someone to say something to which you are vehemently opposed. Rep. Hunter is clearly not that.

Kyle Johnson, at 8:05 am EDT on September 28, 2007

Has anyone in Academia ever heard of common sense, that is, not inviting a person who wishes the destruction of our country to speak. Scream academic freedom all you want, but it’s just a mater of using good judgement. It’s amazing what happens on campuses, especially if it’s academic freedom for the left. As for a conservative point of view, forget balance and academic freedom. It’s sickening.

nF, at 8:15 am EDT on September 28, 2007

Until any proposed legislation is available for review, people should take a breath and calm down. The description of it here is legally impossible under the First Amendment.

JBM, at 8:20 am EDT on September 28, 2007

Please explain

Could someone from Media Matters or MoveOn explain why no outrage about the riot involving the Minuteman speaker at Columbia versus the need for “academic freedom” for Iran’s president?

Thanks.

B.D., at 8:20 am EDT on September 28, 2007

just a stunt

While I am sure that all the anti-academics are going to get excited by this, this proposal is purely a publicity stunt and is going nowhere fast.

Larry, at 8:25 am EDT on September 28, 2007

political grandstanding at the university

First of all, using the excuse of our troops fighting in the field is just another of this administration’s ploys. The current administration and the Congresspersons who support it use our troops as a way of pushing through any power-grabbing policy they wish.

If the current administration and those who support it really cared about our troops, they would not have fabricated stories in order to send them to Iraq in the first place. Now that the hunt for the nonexistent WMD’s has largely been forgotten by an American public which seems to be losing even its short-term memory at an ever-faster pace, the administration is now blaming the debacle on Iran.

Also: Dr. Bollinger invited Ahmadinejad and then proceeded to insult him in his introduction. I was not impressed with his performance and his grandstanding. How would the Mr. Hunter feel if our president had received a similar “welcome?”

The people of Iran do indeed deserve our support, but I am tired of our government’s selective use force and media hype. Note that we did not threaten to bomb North Korea. Do not tell me that we seriously care about how Iran treats homosexuals or women. We only care about our footprint in the region.

Barbara Quintiliano, at 8:35 am EDT on September 28, 2007

The Columbia Fiasco

The proposal by Duncan Hunter will go no where. George Bush himself stated he had no problem with Columbia inviting the Iranian Hitler. If I were a Columbia alum, I would be furious with Bollinger. He made the University look foolish, small-minded, and unprofessional with his comments. If he intended to hurl insults at HIS guest, he should never have invited him into HIS house! All Bollinger did was provide sympathy for the devil...damn fool!

feudi pandola, at 8:50 am EDT on September 28, 2007

A little less hysteria, a little more balance...

This whole thread (not to mention the cover story) could use a little more balance, a little less hysteria.

To begin with, the honorable (sic) congressman’s little publicity stunt will go exactly nowhere, just like the “equal time” legislation the Democrat party was trying to push several months back. And, by the way, where were you leftist “freedom of speech” people then? I’ll tell you where you were, you were out there offering bizarre rationalizations for the curtailment of the freedom of speech of conservative radio commentators.

The Left has a virtual monopoly on American campuses. Anyone who has set foot on an American campus in the last decade knows that pro-abortion people can attack anti-abortionists or destroy their materials at will, reverse discrimination advocates can attack or physically threaten opponents of reverse discrimination at will. Conservative speakers are routinely shouted down, even threatened physically.

Concern for “freedom of speech” has overtaken the Left ONLY after censorship finally threatened (only on rare occasions) to interfere with THEIR monopoly on American campuses.

You may think such bizarre inconsistencies aren’t noticed, but they are, by a growing number of Americans.

Let’s try for a little more balance, a little less hysteria. Who knows, the American university as we know it might survive another generation!

JimInNashville, at 9:35 am EDT on September 28, 2007

Listen to Bollinger respond to critics

Before you get too carried away with your criticism of the university and of Bollinger, I suggest you listen to him explain the speaking invitation and his introductory remarks.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14742209

T-bone, at 9:35 am EDT on September 28, 2007

Who’s really at fault here?

It was the federal government’s decision to allow Ahmadinejad into our country.

If he’s too dangerous to speak, he ought to be too dangerous to cross our borders, right?

Tom, at 10:10 am EDT on September 28, 2007

How absurd

I wonder if the honorable Congressman has bothered to familiarize himself with the Constitution. Or perhaps he’s noticed that Columbia is a private institution.

Threatening the university for properly executing its purpose and objectives is a bit ridiculous.

Jon L. Albee, Graduate Student at Rice University, at 10:15 am EDT on September 28, 2007

treaty obligations

Tom, While I agree with the above posters that 1) this is just a publicity stunt; and 2) it is unconstitutional, and need to note that we are obligated to let Ahmadinejad (and Fidel) to the country under our UN treaty obligations. If I recall correctly, we can limit his travel, but he gets to address the UN and hang out in New York.

JimInNashville, I think your statements about “the left” having a monopoly on college campuses is a little silly. First of all, most educated people are not nearly as partisan as uneducated people think they are, and secondly, educated people seem to be almost evenly split between political parties in the country.

Larry, at 11:00 am EDT on September 28, 2007

Double standard reflects intellectual corruption

American colleges’ double standard in freedom of speech reveals their intellectual corruption. Columbia University allowed protestors to prevent members of the Minutemen, activists against illegal immigration from delivering the speech they had been invited to give. Yet they ensured freedom of speech on their campus for the president of the tyrannical Iranian regime, a man who had personally assisted in the kidnapping of American diplomats and who certainly does not permit freedom of speech in his own country.

In April of last year, President Bush was scheduled to deliver a speech to fellows of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Hundreds of students including the Stanford Marching Band protested. They blocked the road where Bush was to enter the campus. According to the Stanford Daily, “The magnitude of the protest forced Bush to conduct the meeting at (George) Shultz’s house.”

That’s the state of intellect at American colleges today: They give freedom of speech to the president of Iran but not to the president of the United States. Worst of all, they lack the intellect to recognize a double standard when it’s right in front of them.

Jack Olson, at 11:20 am EDT on September 28, 2007

Let him get away with it?

If the president of Iran is coming to our country, then why not let America’s brightest confront him? The alternative is to let him come to the UN and face no confrontation about his ridiculous statements. When we can publicly confront hate and oppression, we have an obligation to do so.

David Ayers, Assistant Professor, at 11:20 am EDT on September 28, 2007

T-Bone, thanks for the link. Seems I never get to listen to these things in real-time, so that was great.

My response is first, what a stupid piece of legislation that would never pass. Second, Bollinger had every right to say what he did and I am glad he DID. Third, I think if he had set the visit up more as a forum and not a guest speech, then his comments wouldn’t have hit the public so hard. This kind of thing seems to lend itself better to debate as opposed to a negative introduction. Firm words and rudeness are generally expected in any political debate.

kgotthardt, at 11:20 am EDT on September 28, 2007

Keystone U.

Who’d ever have thought that the finest academy on earth could be so entertaining!

Diana Relke, Professor at U. of Saskatchewan, at 12:10 pm EDT on September 28, 2007

“JimInNashville, I think your statements about “the left” having a monopoly on college campuses is a little silly. First of all, most educated people are not nearly as partisan as uneducated people think they are, and secondly, educated people seem to be almost evenly split between political parties in the country.”

There’s a difference between being educated and teaching in a college. Jim is talking about college employees. In many departments, anyway, it’s hard to dispute that political leftists loudly proclaim their monopoly.

JBM, at 12:25 pm EDT on September 28, 2007

Ms.Relke and R v. Butler

JBM, I don’t know what he is talking about because he wasn’t really too clear. He seemed to have some kind of political agenda. Loudly proclaiming an ideological monopoly doesn’t mean that there is one. (Nor does it define the term.) In my experience, the only ideological monopoly in any organization is “self-interest.”

Ms. Relke, At least in the US there is a constant discussion of these issues, and there are no restraints on such discussion. While there are many positive attributes to Canada, there are fewer protections of free expression. The result is that people can be prosecuted for certain ideas. For example, the Canadian Supreme Court held in R. v. Butler that people can be prosecuted and sent to Canada-jail for “any publication a dominant characteristic of which is the undue exploitation of sex, or of sex and any one or more of. . . crime, horror, cruelty and violence, shall be deemed to be obscene"? Other than that, your posts seem to engage in rather trite USA-bashing without any substance. In the future, you may wish to provide specifics.

Larry, at 1:00 pm EDT on September 28, 2007

Protesting Not Allowed?

Based on the comments above, it seems that conservatives equate free speech with the right to speak without facing protests.

If conservative speakers (ie President Bush) come to campus, they will face protests just the same as when liberal speakers come to campus (ie, Donahue at NCSU, Michael Moore, etc.).

This is not a violation of free speech. Freedom of speech does not protect you from the consequences of your statements—it only protects you from government coercion.

David Ayers, Assistant Professor, at 1:00 pm EDT on September 28, 2007

“Ms. Relke, At least in the US there is a constant discussion of these issues, and there are no restraints on such discussion. While there are many positive attributes to Canada, there are fewer protections of free expression. The result is that people can be prosecuted for certain ideas. For example, the Canadian Supreme Court held in R. v. Butler that people can be prosecuted and sent to Canada-jail for “any publication a dominant characteristic of which is the undue exploitation of sex, or of sex and any one or more of. . . crime, horror, cruelty and violence, shall be deemed to be obscene"? Other than that, your posts seem to engage in rather trite USA-bashing without any substance. In the future, you may wish to provide specifics.”

I’ll let you know when I go to jail for my courses on American politics and Middle Eastern Studies.

Diana Relke, Professor at U of Saskatchewan, at 1:35 pm EDT on September 28, 2007

silly

Do the intellectuals remember the 400 days this guy held our American hostages? He was involved with the Iran hostages affair. He then states that the Jews were never murdered by the Nazis. His country sponsors terrorism, and sends bomb making technology to iraq that kills our boys and girls. The same boys and girls that fight for Columbias free speech. Cant you just acsept the fact that it was wrong to allow him an audience in this country instead of ridiculing Duncan Hunter? By the way, he is not a long shot. He is gaining momentum and soon will be a 1st teir candidate. His platform is respected by everyone. if he doesnt gain the presidency, he will surely be a cabinet member, hence Columbia should realize that their funding could be at risk in the future. I suggest a national televised appology to the country, and Duncan Hunter!!!

Stephan Andrew Brodhead, at 1:40 pm EDT on September 28, 2007

Obscenities Other Than Duncan Hunter

I don’t want to move us further off topic...well, actually, yes, I do. Duncan Hunter is a politician whose moment has come and gone, and he will be done embarrassing the people of East San Diego County in just about sixteen months. His proposal to cut off Columbia is, as many have observed, mere grandstanding. Other than stimulating the primitive pleasure centers in the brains of the culture warriors, it is of no consequence.

So let’s talk about Canada.

Larry, as evidence of Canada’s inferior commitment to free expression, you cite a Canadian Supreme Court ruling on the topic of obscenity. But unless I am mistaken, it is also possible for Americans to be imprisoned for violating local obscenity laws, a practice supported by the U.S. Supremes in Miller v. California and generally upheld ever since. I know that U.S. case law allows for numerous exemptions (artistic, educational, etc.) and may, in that respect, permit more freedom than is allowed up north, but as a practical matter, I would guess that there aren’t too many Americans or Canadians in prison on (non-child-related) obscenity charges.

You might instead have cited Canadian hate speech law, which prohibits expression that encourages hate or genocide against any identifiable group. This is probably the one major area in which Canada is more restrictive than the U.S. when it comes to free speech. Indeed, it is possible that this sort of law could be interpreted to prohibit someone like Ahmadinejad from speaking to a Canadian university, but I don’t really know for sure.

The bottom line, though, is that Canadians, by and large, enjoy largely the same speech rights that Americans do. David Duke might not be able to operate as freely in Manitoba as he can in Minnesota, but other than silencing fringe hate groups, it is not clear that Canadian law has had an especially chilling effect on the free exchange of ideas.

Americans seem to buy the slippery slope theory of free speech, that any restriction serves only to invite further erosion of the right. The experience of our Canadian and European friends suggests that this may not be true.

Unapologetically Tenured, at 3:00 pm EDT on September 28, 2007

Just wondering, what is your background in American Politics?

I am sure that bashing the US is perfectly legal in Canada. But it also doesn’t really get under anyone’s skin. Strangely, saying that women should be treated as if they property, and are nothing more than sex objects (and providing pictures of this) probably is not.

Larry, at 3:15 pm EDT on September 28, 2007

Freedom of speech is good. Its funny how those who criticize Iran’s authoritarian government are unconcerned about the authoritarian trends here. As for the “us vs them” mentality it doesn’t make sense. We should pay more attention to how things are done here not worry about other countries. They surely have real problems there, and the sabre rattling doesn’t help anyone.

Jerry, at 3:15 pm EDT on September 28, 2007

The Columbia Show

Mr. Brodhead, it is not a “fact” that Columbia should not have allowed Ahmadinejad to speak. Reifying your opinions as facts is absurdly dogmatic. Critics of Columbia’s invitation write as though it were an act of treason, damaging the U.S. Humbug! Ahmadinejad surely convinced no one with his absurd statements, and he was met with more catcalls than a neocon in one of those fictitious academic dens of radicalism. Further, giving him an audience is very good PR for America, especially with much contrary press about the Bush Administration. The Iranian president is such a self-aggrandizing demagogue that his speech could only hurt him. Now if we could only get the Ayatollah Khameini, the real power in Iran,to come to the U.S. for a round of speeches with Q & A. That would be a real show.

David, at 3:55 pm EDT on September 28, 2007

This is not returning patriotism to campuses....

Patriotism is a personal feeling, that one either has or doesn’t have. It can’t be restored with legislation. I’m very patriotic, love this country, and have no truck with the President of Iran. But my feelings of patriotism are in no way affected by whether or not he and his ilk are invited to speak on campus.

Marcie, at 4:40 pm EDT on September 28, 2007

questions for Mr. Brodhead

Mr. Brodhead, There are a few flaws with your argument that you need to address.

First of all, he is a head of state. Therefore, at some level what he has to say is of some import, because when he speaks he speaks the positions of his country. Are you saying that only heads of state that are currently aligned with the US should be allowed to speak at a university?

Secondly, there is no indication that Columbia was endorsing his positions. In fact, just the opposite appeared to be true? Indeed, after his talk he ended up looking like a buffoon, even to the “intellectuals.” Perhaps you can explain why he should not have been given the chance to make himself look bad?

Third, in light of Hunter’s proposals you would seriously need to address the argument that it is unconstitutional to impose viewpoint specific restrictions on grants of federal funding. I imagine you would need to start by showing why FCC v. League of Women Voters of California, 468 U.S. 364 (1984) doesn’t apply.

Fourth, since you claim that Mr. Hunter is not a longshot, can you please show me an opinion poll that gives him at least 15% of the vote. Thank you.

Larry, at 4:45 pm EDT on September 28, 2007

“The same boys and girls that fight for Columbia’s free speech”

Did I miss something? Has Al-Qaeda threatened free speech in the United States?

Tom, at 7:30 pm EDT on September 28, 2007

Knowing your enemy

No one seems to have mentioned the main reason I was interested in having the President of Iran speak. He is a dangerous man with a very different view of truth than I have, let alone morality. That is precisely why I think it was a good idea for Columbia to invite him to speak. Hearing his comments on the radio gave me a better idea of what the man actually believes; being at the event probably would have been more enlightening. If more people had taken Mein Kampf seriously, the world might have avoided a lot of evil. Those who contrast protests greeting President Bush with the treatment of the guests at Columbia might notice the extensive coverage of protests at Columbia. That is how it should be. I have never been happy with leftists OR rightists who say everyone has a right to free speech except the people they disagree with.

Phred, at 7:30 pm EDT on September 28, 2007

Larry. . .

“Just wondering, what is your background in American Politics?”

Fox, CNN, and Rush Limbaugh — of course. And you?

Diana Relke, Professor at U. of Saskatchewan, at 8:00 pm EDT on September 28, 2007

“Did I miss something? Has Al-Qaeda threatened free speech in the United States?”

Um, yes, you apparently did. And it was big. You’d have to ask the families of the dead how the event you somehow missed curtailed various freedoms they had enjoyed.

JBM, at 8:00 pm EDT on September 28, 2007

Free Speech Aside

What is an institution like Columbia, with a multi-billion dollar endowment, doing feeding at the trough of Fed funding anyway? That American workers, including some not far above the poverty level, should be paying taxes to help pay for the education of the cream of the elite is absolute insanity.

Tired Adjunct, at 9:30 pm EDT on September 28, 2007

responses

Prof. Relke, I think I see what the problem is. American law and politics is a lot more nuanced and complicated than what the media can and does convey. Most of us (myself included) spend our days dealing with it, and we have decades of experience solving political or legal problems. At best, the media outlets you mention are a vehicle for communicating a message to the masses, but they simply cannot communicate the substance of the issues we must deal with.

Tired Adjunct, For better or worse, in the US, just about every institution takes some form of federal assistance (including guaranteed student loans and work study). Are you really suggesting that ones with the fattest endowments simply give up all funding of any kind? Many of the “American workers” are not smart enough to pay taxes, and probably there is a good reason that they are at this “poverty line.”

JBM, Al-Qaeda might have killed people, but they didn’t threaten free speech. Only the government can do that.

Larry, at 5:20 am EDT on September 29, 2007

Nonsense. If you are dead, you are not free to speak or do anything else. There is no more complete curtailment of freedom than open slaughter.

As if governments alone can threaten freedom of anything. Sheesh.

JBM, at 12:30 pm EDT on September 29, 2007

JBM, Okay, if you want to define a “Freedom” is some kind of metaphysical power that is only tangentially related to state power, then go ahead. However, most discussions of “freedom of speech” center around laws. Not physical powers.

So, yes, in your view, we are certainly legally “Free” to run around our backyards at twice the speed of light. But since it is impossible, we cannot.

Larry, at 1:15 pm EDT on September 29, 2007

“JBM, Al-Qaeda might have killed people, but they didn’t threaten free speech. Only the government can do that.”

Governments around the world have a secondary option. Rather than directly repressing speech, they can allow non-governmental pressure groups the leeway to stop certain types of speech and create a climate of “Free Speech under Self-Censorship". When people are afraid to express their opinion on controversial subjects because of fear of violent retaliation, is Speech really Free?

UT says that the experiences in Europe show that Free speech can have restrictions, but not be eroded. I disagree. Europe has done little to rein in those who would smash criticism with a knife on the streets of Amsterdam; yet reins in those who speak out against it.

True freedom of speech would be displayed by bringing Ahmedinejad to campus and let him speak without being shoved off stage, as well as allowing the same consideration to all other invited speakers.

Assistant Professor, at 7:10 pm EDT on September 29, 2007

question for Asst. Prof

Assistant Professor, Can you tell me what ideas you have been able to express, because you self-censored them?

Larry, at 5:30 am EDT on September 30, 2007

I thought inviting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia was odd and the I thought Lee C. Bollinger’s rebuke was bizarre. Perhaps it was his ineffectual way of saying that he screwed up.

Ahmadineejad, by aiding Iraqi insurgents, has indirectly caused the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of American soldiers.

Does anyone think that the strange actions of Bollinger has done anything to make the world a safer place? Perhaps the opposite?

Are the soldiers in Iraq whose mummies and daddies didn’t have enough money to send them to Columbia going to pay the price for someone’s vision of free speech.

Dennis Ruhl, at 6:10 pm EDT on September 30, 2007

Canada’s Dual Court System and Censorship

Unapologetically Tenured is apparently unaware of the dual court system in Canada that stifles freedom of speech and promotes Liberal censorship. Can you spell “Human Rights Tribunal?” This is a parallel court system that allows a politically correct individual to sue someone for “hate speech” and have his/her legal expenses paid by the government. The defendant has to pay his own legal expenses. The “trial” is by a “tribunal", often a single individual government employee. The effect is devastatingly chilling on freedom of speech.

The Human Rights Tribunal system has been used several times to silence people whose views were unpopular, but which, in our sense of the term, were very far from hate speech. Read “Moral Panic: Biopolitics Rising” by John Fekete, or go to a tribunal website for lots of interesting details.

The Tribunals make up their own laws as they go, and a favorite tactic of complainant’s lawyers is to stall and create a ruckus during court proceedings. Every minute wasted adds up to more cost for the defendant (who pays his own legal bills) and more profit for the complainant’s attorney (whose bills are paid by the government).

JimInNashville, at 10:10 am EDT on October 3, 2007

ideologies

I read articles like “Watch Out Whom You Invite to Speak” all the time. In fact I read many of the far left blogs, etc. to make sure I understand all sides.

Still, no matter how much or what I read, I continue to find that I’m left with only one comment. Actually, it’s more of a request.

Please stop foisting your far left ideologiesonto our college students.

It’s is odd that our academia, that is supposed to be so intelligent, can’t seem to figure out what’s really going on in the world.

Or,perhaps they just don’t care?

Ayasha, at 3:15 pm EDT on October 31, 2007

Jobs Related to Watch Out Whom You Invite to Speak ...

or search for jobs directly.

Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Studies
NC State University

North Carolina State University invites nominations and applications for the position of Vice Chancellor for Research and ... see job

Public Relations Specialist II
University of Georgia

Job Summary This position contributes public relations and marketing expertise to the communications office ... see job

Director of Institutional Giving
New York Law School

New York Law School has a history of innovation and continues to be at the forefront of legal education through project and ... see job

Grants & Research Administrator
Georgetown University

Grants & Research Administrator Georgetown University see job

Director for Communications and Public Relations
Middle States Commission on Higher Education

Lead in developing communication strategies and publications to articulate the Commission’s desired image. see job

Associate Program Officer
The Spencer Foundation

As the Spencer Foundation expands its work in developing new research initiatives, we seek to hire an Associate Program ... see job

Assistant Director, TRIUM Program
New York University

The TRIUM Executive MBA program is the groundbreaking global MBA forged from an alliance of three of the world’s top ... see job

Assistant Director — Graduate School of Arts and Science
New York University

New York University has an exceptional opportunity for an Assistant Director to manage the Graduate School of Arts and ... see job

Part-Time Program Administrator, Achieving the Dream
Lone Star College System

Located just north of Houston, Texas, our five campuses serve 1,400 square miles. Our student enrollment is nearly 50,000 in ... see job

Vice President for Enrollment Management, Planning and University Relations
Institute for Study Abroad, Butler University

New Vice President for Enrollment Management, Planning and University Relations position with the Institute for Study Abroad, ... see job