Nov. 9, 2007

The Path of Respectful Engagement

In the weeks since Columbia University’s president, Lee C. Bollinger, introduced his invited guest speaker, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as a “petty and cruel dictator,” the media have been full of support for Bollinger’s treatment of Ahmadinejad. Many of the writers piled on more insults. One prominent blogger described the Iranian president as a “brown-skinned, terrorist-enabling, nuclear-proliferating certifiable nut.”

Looking for a job?

See all 201 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 3,703
Administrative: 2,312
Executive: 191
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

At my university, we think there is a third way that should have been taken at Columbia. It’s one that has been successfully taken with Iran by our academics, staff and students since the 1990’s. It’s called active, but respectful, engagement. We hold our dissenting views. We express our views clearly and with integrity. But we do so in the spirit of transforming conflict rather than pouring fuel onto it. And we do so with the knowledge and humble admission that we, too, are fallible people and that we are part of a fallible nation. While this essay centers on contact with Iranians, this could be a model for how colleges might handle any number of controversial figures who come to their campuses, whether from around the world or down the street.

My small university in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia tends to be better known among people who work at places like the United Nations, World Vision, and Catholic Relief Services than it does among academics at large North American universities. We’re situated in the shadow of James Madison University in Harrisonburg, far from the media circus we saw at Columbia. We have about 1,600 students, two-thirds being liberal arts undergraduates, one-third being graduate students. About half come from faiths other than the pacifistic Mennonite church, including from non-Christian traditions. By virtue of our path-breaking programs in conflict transformation — through which 3,000 people have passed since 1994 — EMU is widely known by people around the world working in conflict or immediate post-conflict zones, such as in Croatia, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Nepal, the Philippines and Indonesia. Beginning with relief work after the 1990 earthquake in Iran, EMU and its sister Mennonite agencies have worked hard to earn the trust of Iranians of various persuasions, enabling a unique level of educational exchanges.

On October 9, 2007, two weeks after Ahmadinejad was insulted at Columbia, EMU president Loren Swartzendruber sat near me at a lunch round-table with one of Ahmadinejad’s advisers, Ali Akbar Rezaei, a senior member of Iran’s Foreign Ministry.

Swartzendruber, who holds a doctorate in ministry, opened the lunch with a prayer in which he asked for God’s blessing on the food we were about to eat and on the dialogue we were about to have. Swartzendruber then excused himself from the lunch with Rezaei with the explanation that he was heading to a lunch presentation on building peace through interfaith dialogue, study, and exchange, given by a pastor-scholar who had spent 1997-99 in Qom, Iran, studying Islam as well as Persian language and literature.Yes, it may seem hard to believe, but here in Harrisonburg, Va., we manage to have competing lunch events about Iran!

For Rezaei — who had been responsible for setting up meetings for Ahmadinejad in New York in September — this was the beginning of 24 hours of contact with the faculty, staff, and students of our university and its Center for Justice and Peacebuilding. The center houses a master’s-level graduate program that attracts students from around the world. Among its 100 graduate students are 9 from the Middle East, mostly Fulbright students. Some of these students, joined by six Muslim students from other countries, had a meeting with Rezaei in which they respectfully, but frankly, disagreed with most of Rezaei’s characterizations of Iran’s policies, particularly with his description of Iran as a “status quo” state. Rezaei counter-challenged them to not take Fox News about Iran at face value. He encouraged people to come to Iran and see for themselves.

I had met and been impressed by Rezaei seven years ago when he came to my university’s annual Summer Peacebuilding Institute. At the time, he was a young scholar in Iran’s Institute for Political and International Studies. Rezaei took five successive classes, including one on strategic nonviolence and one on inter-religious peacebuilding taught by Marc Gopin, an orthodox Jewish rabbi who is now director of the Center on Religion, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution at George Mason University.

During the two months that Rezaei was at EMU, his first child was born in Iran, and we all celebrated with him. After his return to Iran, we followed his career with interest. He spent four years in London, working in the Iranian embassy there, and then returned to work in the Foreign Ministry in Tehran as director of the North and Central America Department. On the home front, two more children were born.

It was a pleasure to see Rezaei again after all these years and to see that his intelligence, open-heartedness and curiosity were undiminished. Over the lunch — attended by more than a dozen faculty and staff members — Rezaei expressed concern that both the United States and the Islamic world contain an influential minority of people who “think they are 100 percent right, that God is with them, that everyone else is wrong, and that they are the only good guys in the world, so they should impose their views on everyone else.” He noted that those who planned the invasion of Iraq and the men who organized and executed the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States demonstrated similar biases in their thought patterns.

Rezaei lamented mutual ignorance about each other’s countries. He said many Iranians view Americans as being uncivilized people who don’t believe in God, who like killing people and who want to eradicate Muslims. He said, “We desperately need ways to overcome this ignorance.”

He didn’t have to articulate how most Americans view Iranians. All of us sitting at that lunch table were painfully aware of the ignorance about Iran in our own society. I had experienced this myself when I visited Iran as part of a Fellowship of Reconciliation delegation of “civilian diplomats” in March. We thought we would be viewed as the “enemy” in Iran. Instead our group of Americans, seeking to exchange ideas with a broad range of Iranians, was extended warm hospitality wherever we went. Since only about 300 Americans have visited Iran this past year, people seemed surprised to hear we were from the United States. And invariably, the first thing out of their mouths was “We love you!” They would sometimes go on to say that we don’t like your president or we don’t like your government, but their feelings about “Americans” were demonstratively warm-hearted.

In the last 18 months, faculty and students from various departments of Eastern Mennonite have taken trips to Iran. Two students attended a human rights conference in Qom in May, giving presentations on human rights from a Christian perspective. One of our seminary professors gave a theological paper at a conference in Iran on messianism. EMU has also hosted a number of Iranian visitors, including several university professors and an Iranian researcher from the University of Tehran, who attended two sessions of the Summer Peacebuilding Institute.

To be sure, there are numerous issues between Iran and the United States that deserve very serious scrutiny. No one is served by naiveté or ignoring those concerns. One of our Indonesian Muslim students raised concerns about Mennonites interacting with Iranian officials in this e-mail message to me:

“I’m writing this e-mail just to ‘remind’ the Mennonites to be careful in building networks and relationships with the Iranian government. Who takes benefit from this ‘peacebuilding project’: Iranians, Mennonites, Muslims, the United States? I am afraid there is a ‘hidden agenda’ behind the meeting.

“They just use the Mennonites to send their ‘peaceful message’ to the American public, while at the same time they produce uranium, discriminate against non-Shi’ite communities and non-Muslims, massacre members of the Baha’i faith, and so on and so forth.

“Last, but not least, hopefully what I was thinking does not happen. Hopefully, by the Mennonites’ intervention, justice and peace will greet Iran, like in the Harrison Ford movie ‘Witness.’”

We in the peacebuilding field cannot know whether eventually “justice and peace will greet Iran,” just as we cannot know whether eventually the United States will choose the path of equitable peace in the world instead of military and economic dominance. But we are certain that to transform conflict and lay the groundwork for a better future, one must treat others the way – yes, to borrow from our holy book (but not the only book to say this) – one would want to be treated. In our conflict transformation program, we teach our students to move toward differences of opinion without fear, dealing with it open-heartedly, rather than trying to suppress or avoid conflict. Iran’s president undoubtedly has his own agenda for promoting exchanges with American colleges and academics, but our agenda is to promote respectful talking and listening, knowing that none of us has a corner on the truth and that each of us views matters through a particular lens. The more effort we make to peer through the lens of the “other,” the less likely we will end up in violent conflict.

Seeking to “practice what I preach,” I was one of about 120 people from a dozen religious groups and institutions who met with Ahmadinejad two days after his speech at Columbia University. Requested by Iranian officials, the meeting was organized by the relief and service agencies of the Mennonites and Quakers, but included Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, Christian university leaders, and many others.

During the two-hour session, Ahmadinejad addressed the audience for 20 minutes. Five panel members, selected for their range of perspectives, responded to his speech and asked their own questions. The dialogue covered the differences many of us have with Ahmadinejad, but it was conducted with respect and civility on all sides.

I believe this model is a better one for encouraging positive change – on both sides – than verbal attacks. I agree with the petition circulated by Columbia students, which was signed by 660 people online as of this week, in which the petitioners expressed distress that “inflammatory words were delivered at a time when dialogue with Iran is of the utmost importance in an effort to forestall war.”

One petitioner who identified herself as Alena, class of 2009, in the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia, wrote: “As someone who grew up in the U.S. State Department world, I was often exposed to how difficult it was for my father to dialogue with leaders with whom he deeply disagreed. However, it was always his imperative to treat others with human dignity and respect and that U.S. Foreign Policy is best served by always having a platform for dialogue. There is always room for decorum and respect – even if you are faced with your worst enemy.”

We in the academic world must always be open to dialogue, which means respectfully listening as well as frankly speaking in a civil manner. I often disagree with positions that President Bush takes, but I would never presume to change his views and behavior through refusing to speak to him or insulting him.

Instead of limiting our choices to, on one hand, treating Ahmadinejad hatefully or, on the other hand, inviting him to speak without rebuttal in the interests of academic freedom, we advocate a third way: respectful, but active, engagement with those with whom one disagrees. This is what Martin Luther King did and wrote about in his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” It’s what Gandhi did in India with the British. And it is what Nelson Mandela did with the leaders of the South African regime that jailed him for 27 years.

We advocate this third way both for intellectual and spiritual growth, as well as for combating injustice and achieving peace. Nothing is ever gained by pouring fuel onto a simmering fire.

Pat Hostetter Martin, who holds a masters degree in conflict transformation, is one of the administrators of the Center for Justice and Peacebuilding at Eastern Mennonite University, in Harrisonburg, Va., and director of its 13-year-old Summer Peacebuilding Institute.

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

Reductio ad absurdum

I’m afraid Professor Martin pushes her species of relativism to the breaking point. We she recommend an amicable dialogue with Hitler? Hussein? A child molester? Fair hearings are to be conducted in court; other arenas need not be beholden to the same courtesies.

Abbott Katz, at 7:10 am EST on November 9, 2007

“Instead of limiting our choices to, on one hand, treating Ahmadinejad hatefully or, on the other hand, inviting him to speak without rebuttal in the interests of academic freedom, we advocate a third way: respectful, but active, engagement with those with whom one disagrees. This is what Martin Luther King did and wrote about in his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” It’s what Gandhi did in India with the British. And it is what Nelson Mandela did with the leaders of the South African regime that jailed him for 27 years.”

Such engagement works when dealing with a government that can be persuaded by rational argument. The Iranian government is no such beast. Although it will say nice things that calm Western ears, they are only lies. Listen to the words of their governmental ministers and parliament when they speak Farsi! The Mullahs and clerics that have dominated and destroyed the ancient Persian culture for 1400 years are nothing more than imperialists. They kill the Bah’ai. They repress the Zoroastrians (the original religion of the Persians before the Arabs invaded). They stone women. They kill gay people. They arrest students who question them — making them disappear for years on end. They kill those who wish to leave Islam for another religion.

Calm, rational people tried to negotiate with Hitler, and while Chamberlain announced “peace in our time", Eastern Europe was being invaded by Germany. There are times when reason and debate will win over an opponent; but one cannot reason with liars and religious ideologues.

Assistant Professor, at 9:15 am EST on November 9, 2007

In reference to Abbott Katz comments, If you can’t have a respectful dialog with a speaker in a public forum at a major university then just don’t invite them!

There was no need to vilify Ahmadinejad, he does a fine job of it all on his own. The decision to bring Ahmadinejad to Columbia and then publicly insult him accomplished nothing except look petty, rude and by reference bring all of us down to his level with the whole rest of the world watching.

I find it hard to believe that the president of a major academic institution acted like that. It is something you would expect from a 5 year old.

Dave Solomon, at 9:50 am EST on November 9, 2007

Teaching Respect

The comment by Abbot Katz demonstrates the limits of American historical knowledge and education in general — how, exactly, in anyone’s educated mind is the current President of Iran a “Hitler"? It is this kind of absurdist thought pattern — anyone we do not like, anyone who is hateful — is automatically the worst human in history — which provides the intellectual cover for everything from the President of Columbia’s rudeness to the President of the US’s war desires.

“Engagement” is not “approval” — “respect” is not unchallenging friendship — “politeness” is not a sin. And I thank Mr. Martin for forcefully but respectfully explaining to American educators how to have a conversation of value.

The incident with Bollinger and Ahmadinejad showed me exactly why Columbia has such persistent problems between its students and faculty on political issues. Dr. Bollinger’s tone must have permeated the campus environment. Why respect or even listen your professor’s points of view if you disagree when the President of the University has established that hurling insults is the best form of communication? Why respect alternate student opinion when the President of the University has established that disrespect is something of value?

What Mr. Martin describes is a process of teaching students how to listen. I can only imagine how much better — and safer — the position of the US in the world would be if more American universities embraced this.

Ira Socol, Michigan State University, at 9:50 am EST on November 9, 2007

a thoughtful response and reflection

Ladies and Gentlemen, the author of “The Path of Respectful Engagement” is fully aware of the realities operative in the government, and President, of Iran, past and present. He is advocating an approach of engagement with eyes fully open.

By contrast, Chamberlain’s eyes were not open, in the least, to Hitler’s realities, as evidenced by his declaration of ‘peace for our time’, and the eventual bombing of London itself, dispersing the children of that city to the English countryside and even across the Atlantic.

The author from EMU is advocating the truth that the people of Iran are the greatest allies of that part of the world which desires peace and humane exchange; and, the people of Iran are the only ones who can take their government to task, effectively. We certainly cannot do so, and, even if we could, we are not morally qualified to do so, any longer, if we ever were.

Therefore, it is imperative that every time we have the opportunity to do so, we should express our respect for the people of Iran, which does indeed have a glorious ancient history as Persia, by the way we treat their current and future dignitaries.

This includes both confronting the evil of their officials with a no-nonsense firmness and refusal to validate their duplicitous communications, while treating them formally with all the old world courtesy one would extend to any guest in one’s own home —- for it is the people of Iran who are the real guests in our home, every time one of their public officials visits the United States.

See, we have forgotten the most foundational premise of our own governmental system of democracy. “We the people. . . .”

The American South’s tradition of hospitality is, indeed, greatly needed at this critical moment, and most qualified to lead by example, in light of their contributions to the founding of this country. I am delighted to read that the old and distinguished state of Virginia is setting the example, and I hope that many others will thoughtfully consider it.

I hope those who doubt the wisdom of EMUs approach, though their reservations are certainly understandable, will thoughtfully read “The Path of Respectful Engagement” again, and again each day, for some time, to digest its profound wisdom and moral rectitude, long practiced among the Mennonites and their historical forbears.

In academia, we tend to presume that simplicity could not possibly have anything to teach us. I would suggest that simplicity is the only thing that can possibly save us from this hour.

As a mother, I would advocate turning off CNN, in the winter days ahead, and listening to silence for a while; and being more selective of one’s sources of information. One cannot understand current events, or respond to them appropriately, until one has digested the history that informs the whole of those events, as EMUs president points out most accurately, and as his Iranian student understood.

I highly recommend Jawaharlal Nehru’s The Discovery of India, which I am currently reading, for its relevant insights into the histories of the East, as well as its perservering heart and soul.

If we could find a way, in every American home, to do that (we do, in my home), we could regain our capacity for thoughtful reflection, which informs true listening, which is the essence of genuine hospitality, where dialogue flourishes and leads all blessed by its warmth to a relaxation of biases and a broadening of horizins, which is wisdom.

It is not incidental, either, that the Mennonites have established their course of action upon the canonical texts of antiquity, the ancient Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. They have that reverent mindset in common with the ancient culture of Persia, and the modern people of Iran.

Finally, it worthy of note that evil can only ever be overcome by persevering, self-sacrificing, if necessary, goodness. For that reason, as we are unqualified in so many respects to take evil to task, we would do well to exercise the warmest hospitality possible, whenever possible, the foundation of any genuine goodness to be recovered by us as individuals, or as a nation.

We are twelve months from the real possibility of having, much like the people of Iran, an incessantly smiling, privately virulent, and publicly conscience-less political ideologue installed in our own White House, again. We would, therefore, be wise to reflect upon how we wish to be treated by the nations of the world, who find her repulsive and the personification of the very opposites of everything they hold dear, while they are well on their way to economic predominance over us, which will not be reversable for the foreseeable future.

We will, in the years ahead, be faced with realities that will incline us to either bitterness toward the world, or William Henry Channing’s equanimity:

“To live content with small means; To seek elegance rather than luxury, refinement rather than fashion. To be worthy, not rich. To study hard, think quietly, talk gently, act frankly. To listen to stars and birds, to babes and sages, with open heart. To bear all cheerfully, do all bravely, await occasion, hurry never. . .This is to be my symphony.”

The people of Iran have been learning this lesson for decades, now. We have much to learn from them, about how to endure the unendurable, with grace.

Mrs. Lisa Lawson

Mrs. Lisa Lawson, mother/homemaker/academic editor at Trenton, Texas, at 10:25 am EST on November 9, 2007

Living Peace

I am a graduate of EMU, and am familiar with the ideas that are behind the university’s conflict transformation program.

Conflict transformation does not come from a vacumm of experience. Mennonite pacifism is rooted in its conception and has always faced hatred and violence. Even in American history there has been persecution. My grandmother told me stories of men being tarred and feathered during WWI because of their refusal to join the fight or buy war bonds. These things were common occurances in both World Wars and beyond. My home church stopped speaking German because to speak German meant you were a traitor in the 40s. Although these are certainly not to the scale of the things that happen in Iran, Darfur, Pakistan and elsewhere, they still were known by the leaders of our nation, and little was done about it.

Mennonites have always worked for peace in their homes and beyond. They live and work with average Iranians as well. They do not merely talk with the nation’s representatives. Ignoring the leaders of a nation do not help the helpless in those countries.

Can you change the fate of a nation like Nazi Germany or Iran? Maybe not. It is our duty to try and get the ear of at least one who might have influence over such a leader.

Am I comfortable with all the tenents of pacifism and conflict transformation? No, but being comfortable doesn’t mean you are right. It means maybe you should look at it a little more carefully. To believe you are correct and everyone else is wrong can lead to the very paths we find so heartless.

Jessica Penner, EMU graduate, at 11:30 am EST on November 9, 2007

Recourse to Hitler

Whenever our leaders and our media punditocracy want to stoke the fears and hatreds of the masses, whenever they feel the need to demonize an enemy so that our leaders can serve their own will to dominance ("What we say, goes, we have 30,000 pound bombs") there is recourse to Hitler.

Yet we do well to remember that in the 1930s many of our leaders rather admired Hitler’s massive miltary build up: It was good for business. He was buying lots of material from us while smashing unions and dissent. Hitler had the workforce beautifully under control. Our captains of industry were in admiration of it. He was doing business with western business and profits were had all the way around. Hitler, we do well to remember, was confirmed in his anti-semitism by reading Henry Ford’s newspaper _The Dearborn Independent_. Only later, when he started getting entirely out of hand did the new narrative arise about appeasement.

Is it any wonder that many leaders around the world today are telling their people that they shouldn’t be appeasing OUR leaders.

So I’m sympathetic to the article in that all peoples should be suspicious of their own leaders, most especially when those leaders have been elected. They’re in a position to lie to us, to distort, and manipulate whole populations to serve their own narrow interests or ideologies rather than the common good.

Such manipulation, deceit, and ulterior motives are always easier to discern, it seems, in the Other Guy. The Other Guy, however, may be a mirror into which we ourselves are looking. History may yet show that it was Saddam Hussein who was appeasing Bush before the present war in Iraq.

Our leaders are not immune from engaging in terrorism as defined by international law. It’s just that they have the luxury to perform it wholesale rather than retail (i.e. 30,000 lbs. bombs dropped from 30,000 ft.)

Hence the message expressed above: we are safer in this volitile world if we genuinely try to reassure other peoples (independently of certain leaders) that we seek MUTUAL security, not national security. Thank you all for listening with open hearts and minds.

Medgar Samuelson, Director of Internal Assessment at Withheld, at 12:30 pm EST on November 9, 2007

Whom Not To Invite? No need to look far!

Mr Katz suggests that some people are too evil to have an amicable dialog with, and I agree with him.

Looking abroad, we should certainly have no such dialog with Israeli leaders, whose policies of murder, expropriation, exploitation , and oppression against Palestinians are among the worst “violations of human rights” on the planet.

But why look abroad at all? The illegal US aggression against Iraq has caused more than a million deaths, according to studies published in The Lancet. It is even more outrageous than Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939, something the world recognized as aggression.

US aggression in Iraq is far worse than anything the Iranian leadership — horrible types, I agree — have done.

Unless we are to support an immoral double standard, we should refuse to engage any representative of the US government — indeed, any politician of any party who voted for the Bush administration’s illegal aggression against Iraq.

And we should extend that refusal to representatives of any government that supports US aggression.

Grover Furr, at 1:10 pm EST on November 9, 2007

Thank God for EMU

A very fine article.

One thing that is missing , however, is the basic truth of the American system — conveniently overlooked by Bush, Cheney, Bechtel and Faux News — that there is no democracy without access to ALL points of view. Even that of the child molester, Mr. Katz — you might watch Fritz Lang’s “M” to get that viewpoint, as unpleasant as it is. (Lang, of course, was driven out by Hitler.)

You can believe in the power of truth, in free debate, or you believe in the Faux News theory of the power of the untruth. Democracy needs to have its decision-making citizens hear ALL sides of ALL issues.

Democracy does not work in a world based on the Faux News approach: Screaming untruths to a group of listeners who sadly WANT to be led in their thinking and who would be very happy in a country like Hitler’s Germany.

As to this Iran issue: How amazing that people like Katz and the “assistant professor” condemn Iran — a country by my reckoning which has done comparatively little to destablize the world — but ignore the Nazi past of the Bush family. George’s grandfather was the banker for the Nazis. He lost all his assets during WW II (and in some mysterious way received them back later.) GW is named for the Nazis’ banker, HW Bush, Mr. Katz. So I’d think you might tend to question the heir of Nazi money, GW, and not the President of Iran.

But, again, it’s a matter of knowing all the facts, and making a decision based on those facts.

Base a decision on the tripe that comes from Faux News, and you are guaranteed bad policy.

Donald M. Scott, at 1:30 pm EST on November 9, 2007

Third Way

I agree that there is a respectful way for dialogue. I think that exchange coudl have been handleed much better.

Jay Bender, at 11:55 am EST on November 10, 2007

Clarification about the author

As a point of clarification/correction for readers and those offering responses, Pat Hostetter Martin is a woman. (Despite advances in academia, it remains easy to assume “Pat” is male.)

Nicholas Stoddard, Undergraduate Student at Eastern Mennonite University, at 1:50 pm EST on November 10, 2007

“third way?”

Not so sure the EMU “model” suggested here is necessarily THAT unique. As you know, over here, on the other other side of the Blue Ridge, Tom Jefferson founded the University of Virginia with this timeless model:

“Here at the University of Virginia we are not afraid to tolerate error so long as reason is free to combat it.”

Too bad Columbia didn’t have the decency to be so civilized. It was hardly their best moment — though perhaps it played well with the fundraising department.

Scott, at 6:10 pm EST on November 10, 2007

another quibble

While I realize several characterizations in this article may be helpful to boost the author’s enthusiasm for her own program, I regret to see Mr. Rezaei characterized as an “advisor” to Ahmadinejad, a “senior” member of Iran’s foreign ministry. The latter is perhaps technically true, in that he’s risen therein amid many departures of other veteran Iran foreign policy hands under the A/N administration. But Ali doesn’t directly advise A/N any more than lower level career US State Department officials directly advise Bush or Cheney.

This is, of course, a delicate matter. One hopes that the “third way” spoken of in such glowing terms includes more careful study of the political systems with which engagement is sought.

HavaiWill, at 7:20 pm EST on November 11, 2007

I’m Glad I Don’t Know ...

I knew Lee Bollinger reasonably well and admired him when he was at the University of Michigan. I knew him to be a very bright, very knowledgeable, very rational, remarkably articulate man. In almost every circumstance his intellectual, academic, and administrative competence seemed to characterize his actions.

When I heard he was going to introduce Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I almost looked forward to the introduction as much as the speech (we already knew what Ahmadinejad would have to say). I knew, above all else, he would be thoughtful and clever. What I heard caused me to think I was hearing, not Lee Bollinger at all, but some half-baked, defensive dictator from one of the few remaining communist fiefdoms. The words that flashed through my mind while Bollinger was speaking were outrageous, inappropriate, absurd, bizarre, sophomoric. It wasn’t that anything he said was incorrect, it’s just that he was introducing an invited speaker at Columbia University, not warming up the crowd at a Rush Limbaugh speech. I could imagine Dick Cheney making that introduction, but I couldn’t believe I was hearing Lee Bollinger going off like that. I was embarrassed for him, for Columbia University, and for so-called “elite” higher education in this country.

I have no idea what drove Bollinger to handle that situation so badly, but I’m quite certain if we knew what it was, it would only increase our embarrassment on his behalf.

Frizbane Manley, at 8:00 am EST on November 12, 2007

Pacifism in a cold, cruel world

Ira Socol commented ” how, exactly, in anyone’s educated mind is the current President of Iran a “Hitler"? Well, Mr. Socal, as an “educated person” I would expect you to know that Ahmadinejad was one of the prinicpal organizers of the Iranian student group that captured innocent American citizens, held them hostage for 444 days and then released them on the day President Reagan was inaugurated in January 1980.

I would expect you to know that this is the man who publicly advocates the destruction of the “Zionist entity” known to the rest of the world as the democratic state of Israel, and lastly, I would expect you to know that, according to this man, there are no homosexuals living in his country. These are not the statements or actions of a rational person. To offer honest dialog with such a people is suicidal, not humane, foolish, not wise or righteous, stupid not smart.

No, Bollinger was a damn fool to invite this creep, and the world community is foolish to tolerate his act much longer.

feudi pandola, at 9:00 am EST on November 12, 2007

Holy Smokes ... I’d Better Ask Too

Professor pandola, I have read your letter twice. That done, I wonder if you would now mind telling me how it is that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is another Adolph Hitler. And please don’t leave out any of the gory details.

Frizbane Manley, at 1:55 pm EST on November 12, 2007

What bizarre comment

What a strange set of arguments Mr/Ms Pandola (I apologise for the gender mistake above), ... “I would expect you to know that Ahmadinejad was one of the prinicpal organizers of the Iranian student group that captured innocent American citizens, held them hostage for 444 days and then released them on the day President Reagan was inaugurated in January 1980.” Sure, unpleasant, dictatorial, unwilling to follow international law — and, excuse me — how many days have people who have found to be innocent been held by the current US Regime at Guantanamo and elsewhere? Is Bush “Hitler"? I think, no matter how poorly I think of him, he is not. ... “I would expect you to know that this is the man who publicly advocates the destruction of the “Zionist entity” known to the rest of the world as the democratic state of Israel, and lastly, I would expect you to know that, according to this man, there are no homosexuals living in his country.” Sure, I disagree with him. I disagreed with Milton Friedman supporting the Chilean Junta. I disagree with Israeli occupation of Palestine. I disagree with almost every US Republican regarding homosexual rights. But I do not rank any of those entities as “Nazi.” ...But here’s the thing Mr/Ms Pandola — I guess I can distinguish between Hitler and lesser evils, unlike you and perhaps unlike the President of Iran. I am also confident enough of myself and my arguments that if I invited anyone of those I’ve listed to discuss these issues with me, that I could choose to do so without hurling absurd insults or degrading myself through rudeness.

Ira Socol, Michigan State University, at 1:55 pm EST on November 12, 2007

The leader of Iran

I was wrong. No, the leader of Iran is not Hitler...yet.

feudi pandola, at 3:30 pm EST on November 12, 2007

bollinger comments

A message to any future academic employers:

I love to pander to (university) presidents. I"m probably not too shabby at impressing the college board either (though, full disclosure, I once committed to a sit-in against sweatshop labor). And I would make a brilliant flunky if you only offered me tenure (at which point I plan to sit around all day pontificating on the virtues of university presidents with sporty glasses).

Yes, in the grand game of promoting justice, universal laws, human rights, et al...we should spend some time examining the self righteous motivations of men like university president Lee Bollinger. One wonders if in NY a university president gains more traction berating an anti-semite and petty dictator (yes I agree w/his remarks) than he would if he was still living in Michigan with its large constituency of Arab Americans denizens of the metro-Detroit area.

So let’s cut to the chase: Bollinger was preaching to the choir and was nothing more than an echo chamber for hawkish interests (gentile, Jewish, white, black, I hardly want to be accused of being biased against men and women with brass balls)...

Wouldn’t it be nice then if academics stuck to what they do best: civil discourse that moves the debate along rather than stifles it at its inception. Soap box antics is the way to go if the “public square” that academic scholars love to promote is ever to move beyond the ninth floor of some godforsaken graduate center.

That Bollinger was able to turn his invitation to the Iranian Premier (a despicable character to say the least) into a spectacle on the commons of Columbia University, however, does not make his public posturing any more righteous. The best thing would have been to set the record straight through bold questions, not clever pap that one finds at press conferences in gleaming white white houses...

To turn the tide of war, we need better ideas, not appeasment, nor dumb analogies to petty (Chavez?) and huge dictators (Hitler?). A stupid move, ay, if you’re extending an invitation to that self-same dictator at a public forum....If I had some guts I"d drop my fellowship, move out of NY and get a grip on reality again...

That said, I need the money so...

Any university presidents hiring graduate students to teach courses in ethics, organized hypocrisy, sarcasm, satire, bufoonery and the scientific basis for levitating pentagons, need look no further.Jonah Krup is your man.

Jonah Krup, n/a, at 3:15 pm EST on November 15, 2007

Jobs Related to The Path of Respectful Engagement

or search for jobs directly.

Executive Director, International Programs (002624)
University of Maryland University College

Are you seeking a challenging and rewarding position? Look no further than UMUC... see job

Assistant Chair, Liberal Arts
Berklee College of Music

Berklee seeks an engaging, creative administrator and educator who will assist in the leadership of the college’s Liberal ... see job

Chair, Department of Nursing
Governors State University

The Governors State University College of Health and Human Services invites applications and nominations for the Department ... see job

Chair of Organizational Leadership
Northern Kentucky University

Northern Kentucky University’s College of Arts and Sciences invites applications from dynamic and distinguished ... see job

Director of Faculty Affairs
Ross University

Ross University School of Medicine, located on the beautiful island of Dominica in the West Indies, invites applications for ... see job

Chief Academic Officer
CollegeAmerica Services, Inc.

CollegeAmerica Services, Inc., a leader in delivering accelerated high value college degrees through accredited programs, has ... see job

International Programs Coordinator (002625)
University of Maryland University College

Are you seeking a challenging and rewarding position? Look no further than UMUC... see job

Director of Academic Management
Princeton University

Position Summary: The Office of the Provost at Princeton University seeks a Director of Academic Management ... see job

Student Services Manager I
University of South Carolina

A leader in academe, the University of South Carolina holds the Carnegie Foundation’s highest research designation and is ... see job

Director of Disability Services
Drexel University

The Director of Disability Services is a Full-time professional staff member that reports to the Dean of Students. see job