Sunday, September 23, 2007
We'd Invite Hitler to speak, says Columbia's Dean
This video relates to a discussion we had in class.
Would you provide a platform for Hitler, or a denier of the Holocaust to speak in public? Why or why not? If not, how is this any different from other forms of free speech?
What if that speaking event was paid for by taxes? What if that speech was instead a a debate with many sides of the issue presented?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I think this brings up the same thing we've been talking about for awhile. When is being tolerant also being intolerant? For example, if they're tolerating hitler to come present are they being intolerant/unkind towards the millions of jews murdered at his hands?
I think it is giving some type of legitimacy to his argument if he speaks, but then again, just like the film hate.com it can also be used to simply make the students more aware of different views that exist.
I think the statement is controversial and each individual has a different take on whether it is a good idea or not. I personally think that it isn't but then the idea of censorship arises and who decides what should/shouldn't be censored.
we've talked about whether or not allowing holocaust deniers to speak gives them any credit or not. the point to hear from these people is to learn about why they think the way they do.
however, i think that in this case, columbia has overstepped the line. ahmadinejad is not exactly a friend of the united states - he has clearly said that he wants to blow both the united states and israel off the map. what kind of message does it send when a prominent university like columbia invites an clearly anti-american leader to speak at the school?
the columbia dean stated that he hoped that inviting ahmadinejad would provide columbia students with a chance to debate. but i don't think that this is true. how can you debate with such an extremist who both denies the holocaust and really and truly hates america? it's like what we saw on hate.com - people with these kinds of opinions can't be debated with.
also, there is a sort of double standard here - while columbia will let ahmadinejad speak, they didn't allow the president of harvard to speak because of what he said about women. what he said was a much less serious statement than what ahmadinejad has said.
columbia university is treating this dangerous, anti-american leader as though he is a welcomed guest. to me, columbia has made a serious mistake and (perhaps unintentionally) given credit or support to ahmadinejad's views.
on a side note, and connecting back to the "constitution day" post: columbia university has, in my opinion, engaged in rather anti-american behavior recently... between this invitation to banning the ROTC. i think it appalling that people can accept such behavior of such a prominent university.
anyway, sorry for such a long post - but hopefully this brought some new views to the table... :)
-coe
If I were deciding who could speak at a panel about the Holocaust, I would not let a Holocaust denier participate. I think that in some cases, people are simply flat out wrong and offensive. I'm not against allowing contrarian views in any way, but I think giving equal time to a Holocaust denier wouldn't add anything productive and would force others to get in a debate about whether or not the Holocaust occured. I wouldn't want to give him/her the legitimacy of a platform from which they could speak. I don't think it's a matter of censorship: in this case, free speech a means I get to decide who can speak at my platform. The Holocaust denier could find someone else who will still let him/her speak.
I'm not as sure about Columbia's decision. I think there is something to be learned from having a prominent current world leader speak and answer questions, despite extreme views he may have. From my understanding, the forum they are having is mainly about foreign policy, an issue that the president can provide insight on from a different perspective. Also the opportunity to ask questions to a leader of a foreign state would be fascinating. If it were a Holocaust panel, I believe Columbia would be wrong to host him, but I think having a talk about more general issues could provide good insight into exactly where his issues from America come from.
I agree that bringing in Ahmadinejad gives him validity which I do not think should be allowed. He is severely anti-Semitic and has claimed that Israel should be "wiped off the map." There is a big difference between censoring someone and giving someone who says unbelievably hurtful things validity. It is not as if we still do not have access to his ideas or beliefs, we are simply not giving him a forum on a renowned university to share these beliefs.
This all has made me think about what the grounds for not giving someone a forum to speak should be.
Once again I'm back to questioning the relativity of morality. Is morality truly relative? Is anything truly "evil?" For instance, was the Holocaust "evil?" Could it have been both "evil" and "good?" Just because there may be two ways of looking at something, does it mean that both are right? Can both be right? I'm not saying that the Holocaust was not evil, I fully believe that it was. I'm just wondering how far you can take moral relativism and what moral relativism has to do with whom we give validity to.
Obviously, the dean of Columbia made a very daring and controversial statement in saying he would invite Hitler to speak and engage in a debate with Columbia students. While I understand Diego's reaction that he feels that some people are just "flat out wrong" in their opinions, there's still a part of me that rejects the idea of making such a blanket statement about a human being. While I understand being deeply offended and experiencing an inability to comprehend another person's viewpoints, I am more interested in looking at why people find themselves on such opposite ends of these social/moral spectrums. People's emotional/intellectual identities develop and change according to myriad environmental factors, and it is for this reason that I am fascinated by people like Hitler or David Cash. The more I reject their ideas, the more I crave to explore what's really happening inside them, and how our experiences have led us to become completely different people. This random train of thought also gets me interested in similarities, and investigating whether or not I would find commonalities with people whose opinions I struggle to comprehend...
I agree with Danielle's statement about how interesting it would be to find out exactly why people who think so drastically differently from ourselves think the way they do. To use Hitler as an example, there is absolutely no way for me to understand how Hitler could possibly legitimize the death of six million Jews, morally, logically, or in any other way. Somehow, he believes that it is legitimate, and I think that we would be closer to solving the problem of genocide if we could understand the psychology behind how perpetrators of genocide convince themselves and others that it is right. For a research project, I read parts of "Mein Kampf." This does not mean I support the ideas in the book, in fact, I was repulsed by it, but giving time to someone's ideas does not necessarily mean agreeing with them or debating their validity, it can mean studying them to prevent future harm.
On the other hand, giving someone a platform to speak is very different from reading a book, as it requires inviting them, gathering a large group of people, and other acts that in some ways imply support. So was it worth the offense caused by inviting Ahmadinejad and the potential implication of support to get some sort of grasp on his frame of mind? I really don't know. Whether I'm for or against it, I don't know that I could have gone to see him speak were I a student at Columbia.
In response to Coe's comments, I have mixed responss. For one I do think that allowing someone who hopes for the destruction of the United States to be a prominent speaker is a bit odd. But I agree with what Jordan said in class, it is very important for Americans to see many internationally dislike the U.S. If we are aware of it, maybe we can change some of the things that make us hated.
Second I have to argue your view as these actions by Columbia as unamerican. It is actually quite American, in my opinion. We are giving him the right to express his ideas, even though he isn't an american citizen. As far as the ROTC, Lick would never allow ROTC to be a club at the school, yet it isn't called unamerican. Both are private Universities who don't wish to promote violence on there campus.
ah the joys of debate... :)
first, according to many of our enemies, they dislike us BECAUSE we are a free nation. they dislike us because we support christianity/judaism. they dislike us because we symbolize the free world. i think we can all agree that these are aspects of our society that we favor. why would we want to change this?
you're right that one of the wonderful things about america is that we have freedom of speech. however, i don't think that this was a CONSTRUCTIVE expression of ahmadinejad's views. did this forum help him to see another side? did it help him pull together a thought process that we could rationally talk to him about? i believe that this was a forum that he used to promote his own propaganda. clearly, he doesn't believe that the holocaust existed, he doesn't treat women fairly, he says that iran doesn't have gays, and he believes that israel and america should be destroyed.
as far as the ROTC - it's unfortunate that you think that the ROTC is around to promote violence. on the contrary, the ROTC is here to protect us and our country. it also protects those freedoms that you speak of. it is hypocritical that a university such as columbia could let ahmadinejad speak there and not have the ROTC represent themselves when the ROTC is FOR our country, not against.
ahmadinejad is supporting the insurgents in iraq. he is helping terrorists who have killed americans. who do you think would come to our aid - our military or ahmadinejad?
i could go on, but for the sake of this post, i won't. thank you for such a lively debate. :)
-coe
so I think both sides of the debate are interesting... and I understand both sides and agree with them to some degree...
yet isn't the fact that we are all debating it dictate its importance? Shouldn't these issues be constantly discussed and taken into light?
I personally think that if there was another way to bring said issues to light without actually inviting such a person to speak at a prominent college it would be preferable but I don't think that him coming can be considered only negative.
True, what he says and believes is awful, and I in no way think that anything a columbia student may say will change his views or make him reconsider. Yet I think it may be a good tool for Columbia students to have. If they understand they opposition so to speak, it is easier to counter it in the future.
I also understand coe's statement that Columbia is being hypocritical. It's true, they are. But hey - if it brings to light these different issues that we are discussing here, isn't that good?
Perhaps on a slightly different note, I'd like to address the little discussion that Coe and Leo are having about the ROTC and more broadly, about interference and peace. I disagree with Leo's statement that the ROTC promotes violence. I agree that fighting and war are not things that we should desire to do, but at some point, violence does become a necessary part of preserving peace and preserving freedom, as contradictory as that sounds. I think it's easy to say that one is antiwar and wants only peace, but that peace comes at a cost and freedoms must be defended. I would not go so far as to say the not allowing the ROTC on campus is "un-american," but I think that giving people the access to protecting their country is necessary and important.
Which brings me to the question of, is violence ever the answer? I think I might have already asked this before, but I'd still like to hear what you guys think. When people can't be reasoned with, as we are discussing in this post, should we resort to violent or physical means of force?
Post a Comment