According to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, "we don't have homosexuals like in your country … In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you we have it." This has become the most infamous portion of his infamous speech at Columbia University last Monday.
A cynical explanation of Ahmadinejad's statement that Iran does not have gays "like" those in the United States is that Iran's friends of Dorothy don't wear Diesel jeans, listen to Christina Aguilera or drink Cosmopolitans. But I doubt that's what the Iranian president meant.
Rather, he claims that homosexuality itself does not exist in Iran, and, presumably, the rest of the Muslim world. This is obviously preposterous (homosexuality is a part of human nature and has existed in most, if not all, cultures throughout history) but the purported absence of Iranian homosexuals is certainly not for Ahmadinejad's lack of trying. His regime has presided over the widespread arrest, torture and murder of homosexuals; according to Iranian human rights groups, the Iranian government has murdered as many as 4,000 gays since the Islamic Revolution came to power in 1979.
The Columbia student body applauded Ahmadinejad throughout his rant, a display that should go down as one of the most shameful moments in the annals of American academia. To their credit, however, the audience laughed in Ahmadinejad's face when he uttered his assertion about gays. But Columbia's invitation to Ahmadinejad (who kills gays) and its near four-decades-long banning of the military (which merely prohibits them from serving openly) is no laughing matter.
In 1969, Columbia University expelled the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program from its campus in response to the demands of a faculty and student body radicalized by the Vietnam War. Today, the University maintains its opposition ROTC (as well as the Judge Advocate General Corps at its law school) based on the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, which prevents openly gay people from serving in the armed services. Columbia and other elite schools claim that allowing the military to recruit on campus would violate their non-discrimination policies.
While it is difficult to persuade supporters of this policy on patriotic grounds (for instance, that having a strong military is more important than sending a feel-good, yet ultimately futile, message about homophobia), the most effective argument in favor of bringing the military back to campus is that banning it actually hinders the cause of ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
The policy can only be changed by Congress (it was an act of Congress in the first place) and Congress will only change the policy once the military supports its repeal. The easiest way to change the attitude of the military is to staff its ranks with fair-minded people the likes of which are more likely to be found at a place like Columbia than amongst the rural Southerners who overwhelm the military ranks. As I wrote in these pages two years ago, "The military brass itself is far more likely to empathize with someone who once wore a uniform and risked their life than they are to heed the hectoring of a liberal faculty member."
The least that can be said in Columbia's defense is that its opposition to ROTC and JAG is a good-faith effort to oppose homophobic policies. If that's the case, then how can those supporting the school's position on ROTC and JAG possibly justify President Lee Bollinger's invitation to Iranian President Ahmadinejad?
The Iranian regime's crimes against homosexuals are long and documented. Homosexuality is punishable by death, though some Iranian gays have escaped with mere lashes.
How dare this vicious thug come to our country and deny the existence of the thousands of gay people his regime has murdered. And how dare the students in the audience, who - had this been 1939 and it were Adolf Hitler speaking (as the Columbia School of International and Public Affairs Dean John Coatsworth says he would have liked), would have fecklessly applauded the Fuhrer - cheered and clapped for this murderer.
If gay people are not angry at the spectacle that transpired on Morningside Heights last week, then they are not paying attention. It is disingenuous for Columbia to claim that it bans the military from campus in deference to the aggrieved dignity of gay people while simultaneously inviting a murderer of homosexuals. This is the farce that Columbia University has now become: a place where those wanting to serve their country are shunned while a man who murders gays is welcomed and applauded.
37 Comments for “Columbia’s Hypocrisy”
posted by Amicus on
This is obviously preposterous (homosexuality is a part of human nature and has existed in most, if not all, cultures throughout history)
Obviously?
As I recall, when Andrew Sullivan wrote something very much like that in Virtually Normal, some well-placed critics on the right wrote that he had presented no such evidence for such a bold case; and in any case if one presumed such, it would merely be evidence of the ‘constant possibility of human sin’, if I remember that smug little phrase right.
how can those supporting the school?s position on ROTC and JAG possibly justify …
Is there a difference between having someone stop by for a day and letting someone set-up shop in your house?
posted by Charles Wilson on
The hostility to free speech from this or that zealot, the latest of them being James Kirchik, never ceases to amaze me.
Columbia University didn’t “welcome” the president of Iran. It invited him to speak. And when he did so, his audience laughed at his claim that there are no homosexuals in his country.
Gay people couldn’t have asked for more effective advocacy than that. What is it about the James Kirchiks of the world that makes them so blind, deaf, and dumb?
posted by The Gay Species on
Either dissent is tolerated or it is not. The constitutional guarantee to freedom of speech foremost serves political dissent. Any time the Politically-Correct Crowd arbitrates “which” dissent to allow, it has shown itself to be an illiberal institution. Academia’s primary purpose is to provide a liberal education, not to establish political orthodoxy. If one is not exposed to alternative points of view, how does one develop critical thinking skills. One does not. One becomes an ideologue.
posted by Randy on
The answer to bad speech is more speech. I’m glad that Columbia allowed him to speak, as it showed to everyone, even potentail supporters, what an idiot he is.
Does anyone seriously think that he swayed anyone in the US to thinking that things in Iran are wonderful and terrific? I hardly think so. So what’s the problem?
Oh that’s right. Conservatives think that America is so weak it needs to be protected from idiots, that normal people can’t think for themselves, and that one speech like this will make our republic crumble. I only wish they thought more highly of us citizens.
posted by Avee on
Does anyone seriously think that he swayed anyone in the US to thinking that things in Iran are wonderful and terrific?
“The Columbia student body applauded Ahmadinejad throughout his rant, a display that should go down as one of the most shameful moments in the annals of American academia….”
posted by Charles Wilson on
The Columbia student body applauded Ahmadinejad throughout his rant
By the way, James Kirchik, that’s a lie. The students laughed at him when he denied Iran has any homosexuals. I’m beginning to think that truth is to a Republican as garlic is to a vampire.
posted by PSUdain on
The Columbia student body applauded Ahmadinejad throughout his rant, a display that should go down as one of the most shameful moments in the annals of American academia. To their credit, however, the audience laughed in Ahmadinejad?s face when he uttered his assertion about gays.
If this “truth” of yours is the bane to Republicans, then apparently contextual citation and careful reading are anathema to you, Charles Wilson.
Try reading the article next time before making wild assertions and shooting from the hip.
posted by Charles Wilson on
If they laughed at the guy’s remarks about gay Iranians, then they didn’t applaud “throughout his rant.” Oh, and the president of Columbia introduced the Iranian president with a very tough speech. PSUdain and James Kirchik, you’re pathetic in more ways than one. You can’t tell the truth to save your lives, and your efforts to hop on the wingnut bandwagon won’t get you anywhere with the Republicans whose crumbs to crave.
Get this through your head: The Republican Party hates gay people. It’s their official position. The only difference between them and Ahmadinejad is that today’s Republicans are somewhat more constrained by the U.S. political environment than Ahmadinejad is by the Iranian political environment. Not that your friends aren’t trying to change that.
It must be hard to be a Log Cabinette, forced to tell all these lies but getting nothing from anyone in return.
posted by Jorge on
Saying that attacking Columbia’s invitation is an attack on free speech is quite disingenuous. Columbia’s would have just as much been exercising the university’s freedom of expression by vetoing his dean’s invitation of the Iranian president. This would have sent a message that Columbia hates Ahmadinejad so much that he is not welcome in its home.
Freedom of speech does not mean that everything anyone says or does must be accepted by the community as equally intelligent and honorable. As Americans, we have an obligation to be informed enough to judge Columbia University’s exercise of expression and speak out about whether we think it is right or wrong. That’s exercising our free speech. I have not heard any suggestion of either the city, state, or federal government sanctioning Columbia University for inviting Iran’s president to speak, much less preventing Ahmadinejad from speaking there, so I don’t get this idea that dissent is not being tolerated.
Personally I ignored Columbia’s decision to invite Ahmedinijad (hey, someone has to play the idiot, why not Columbia?) until the hypocrisy was pointed out to me. I am very happy the decision is being condemned, more for Ahmedinijad’s sake than for Columbia’s.
posted by PSUdain on
Well played, Mr. Wilson–ad hominems and no substantive argument except those about semantics.
Those Republicans who are my friends and with whom I “hang out” must really be doing it for the sole purpose of stabbing me in the back. They have no problem (most of them) with gay marriage or gay people. But just keep insisting that’s the case, universally for all Republicans. The young generation is different, and guess what? That’s the future leadership.
I’m not going to foolishly argue that the Republican party as a whole has been or is currently very gay-friendly, but there are good men and women in the party who do fight for us (Sen. John Warner, Mayor Jerry Sanders, etc.), and the only way that we’re going to see more of them is if we applaud and support those who are with us and reach out to try and bring others on board.
On most issues I fall Republican. On this issue I want to change the party. And the only way to do that is from within. I don’t want crumbs; I want absolutely nothing less to effect that change.
Gay rights won’t happen with just one party on board; we need support from both. (Even just for practical considerations, like veto-proof majorities.)
But, by all means, just keep calling me names and condescending, please; it does so much to help advance the cause…
(Sorry to the rest of you for being off topic, but I just get sick and tired of the snarky commentaries from holier-than-thou commenters like Mr. Wilson)
posted by Avee on
Free speech has never meant that a colege or other institution is required to offer someone a high-visibility podium. In fact, since most left-leaning university student councils refuse to fund the campus visits of conservative speakers (even when invited by student organizations) while freely funding visits by leftwing speakers, you’d think lefties would be wary of claiming that lack of a paid-for podium equals censorship.
posted by Mark on
Iran has a pretty bad government, but which regime destroyed Iraq and is now plotting a “preemptive” war at the moment? (Hint: It’s not headquartered in Tehran.)
posted by Jorge on
It takes a lot of imagination to pretend Columbia’s liberal apologists come out less hypocritical on the whole Ahmadinejad thing than Republicans do.
There is a certain belief system in this country that believes in individual rights and freedom of speech for all people. That values the right to a fair and impartial trial and condemns kangaroo court executions. That can balance a vigorous opposition to you socially with a commitment to fight for your right to your opinion and your lifestyle. That stands up against totalitarianism, and for people who are threatened by those who crave power.
They are against Iran and its president for many reasons: they condemn Iran’s sponsorship of international terrorism; it’s undemocratic totalitarian regime that oppresses women and dissidents by force; its execution of thousands of gays on trumped up charges; its buildup of nuclear materials and Ahmadinejad’s pledges to wipe Isreal, our ally and the only democracy in the region, off the map.
It used to be that you couldn’t much distinguish Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, when it comes to how vigorously they believe in defending the basic human rights of all people. Both sides have always had their extremists. But these days I have little confidence in the left’s ability to affirm this nation’s basic principles in the face of the increasing strength of its radical wing.
So even though only some Republicans stand up for gay socio-political causes, that party firmly stands against those who would kill gays and make us unsafe, based on their defense of freedom.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Well played, Mr. Wilson–ad hominems and no substantive argument
Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle! A gay wingnut getting upset about ad hominems! Since we’re on the topic, in fact you’ve lied once more. I gave substantive arguments. You disagree with them, but they were substantive. What is it about wingnuts that makes you such liars? Bad ones at that, I might add.
Those Republicans who are my friends and with whom I “hang out” must really be doing it for the sole purpose of stabbing me in the back.
God only knows what they say behind your back. But that doesn’t really matter one way or the other. The Republican Party hates gay people. It’s one big organization of fag-baiters. No problem with gay marriage, you say? Tell us who was behind all those anti-gay referendums on th past several elections.
he only way that we’re going to see more of them is if we applaud and support those who are with us and reach out to try and bring others on board
Pro-gay voices in the Republican Party are irrelevant.
On this issue I want to change the party. And the only way to do that is from within. I don’t want crumbs
That’s good, because you’re not going to get even that much. When they’re feeling generous, your “friends” in the Republican Party are embarrassed by you. In their normal state, that hate your faggot guts.
So even though only some Republicans stand up for gay socio-political causes, that party firmly stands against those who would kill gays and make us unsafe, based on their defense of freedom.
Really! Apparently you didn’t listen to your Republican friend Pat Robertson go on TV with Jerry Falwell the week after 9/11 and say that God wanted the U.S. to be attacked because it tolerates fags like you. That’s your Republican Party, and no amount of wishing will change that.
—
By the way, this website’s name is another wingnut lie. It’s not the “Independent Gay Forum,” it’s the “Republican Gay Forum.” What is it about you people that makes you lie about each and every single thing every single time?
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
It can’t be named the “Republican Gay Forum,” if it did this site would get even less respect then it does now. Actually, I don’t think opinion (if there is such a thing) of this site could get much lower…Bring on the name change!
PS
There is already a repulsive de facto “Republican Gay Forum”…it is called GayPatriot and it is even more disgusting and anemic then this site.
posted by crankyd on
Maybe they mean Independent (of the obvious truth) Gay Forum?
Colorado Patriot? yeah, Gay Patriot is horrid. They make this site look like a bunch of Kennedys.
posted by Jorge on
Really! Apparently you didn’t listen to your Republican friend Pat Robertson go on TV with Jerry Falwell
And you’re apparently not paying attention to today’s polls showing the moderate Giuliani remaining the frontrunner in the presidential primary. You also weren’t paying very close attention to the tone President Bush set about gays about the time of 9/11, when he basically ignored the conservative right. Don’t even think of trying to cite the Federal Marriage Amendment on me because that would actually be a good argument.
Why on earth are you talking about those nuts? If the Republican party is just a bunch of fag-haters, perhaps you can tell me (because I don’t know) what the current leaders: President Bush (well I know for him), the Senate Minority Leader, the House Minority Leader, and the RNC chairman are saying and have said about the whole fag-hating subject before I accuse you of making gross generalizations based on outdated biases.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Also remember, Jorge, that Charles Wilson, gay Democrats, and whatnot support, endorse, and give tens of millions of dollars in donations for being “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” to politicians who support Federal and state bans, proudly proclaim how much they have “in common” with people those gays call hateful and evil, and who fire gay employees when their partners criticize the politician’s homophobic behavior, after being suitably trashed by fellow gays in the same workplace.
In short, they consider none of these to be fag-hating or fag-baiting. Indeed, they considered John Kerry to be “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, even though he publicly stated that he had the “same position” as Bush and Cheney when it came to gays.
I look forward to their most recent variation on the claim that the DNC head and the Democrat Party Presidential candidate don’t represent the Party’s views at all.
posted by GayAndPayingAttention on
The logic seems to be if military recruiters are banned from campus, then obviously so should be Ahmadinejad. Jamie would have a point if President Ahmadinejad were allowed on campus to recruit students to work for him in the Iranian government. Employment recruiters come to campus bringing offers of what (most) all college students are seeking out: a good job. Universities like Columbia and (pre-Solomon Amd) similar-policied peers simply want, on principled grounds, all of their students to be given a shot at this offer. Allowing a “cruel and petty dictator” onto campus to receive a rare face-to-face ideological attack is not inconsistent with Columbia’s position. They would obviously do the same for military commanders.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ColoradoPatriot writes: “There is already a repulsive de facto “Republican Gay Forum”…it is called GayPatriot and it is even more disgusting and anemic then this site.”
Wow, Colorado, you are STILL getting most of what you write wrong. I’d have thought that even you would be right at least 1/2 the time. LOL
For the record, GayPatriot is a conservative gay blog… not Republican gay blog. In fact, most of the people over there are more libertarian than Republican. You’d have known that if you’d check in there… oppps, I forgot… you were banned. Funny, that?
posted by PeterMoore on
Speaking of conservative websites has anyone seen Conservapedia’s article on homosexuality?
I am speaking of this article: http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
I was banned? That is news to me as I just posted there last week…go fish in some other pond, MM.
posted by Karen on
PeterMoore,
Wow, that’s disgusting. I don’t understand how any self-respecting gay person can align themselves with a movement that gives rise to that kind of article…. can you?
These people *actually believe* that we are straight-hating, poo-eating, rioting, child-stealing, spouse-battering, drug-addled anti-Christs. All of us. Or at least “on average.”
Some days I just want to put my fist through my monitor, reading this stuff, but then I’m sure they’d use that as “more evidence that gays are violent and mentally disturbed”.
posted by Charles Wilson on
I don’t understand how any self-respecting gay person can align themselves with a movement that gives rise to that kind of article…. can you?
The key is “self respecting.” There is no such thing as a self-respecting gay Republican.
posted by Xeno on
Wilson, you are so typical of the smug, superior, "I’m so speciaaaal" liberal gay Democrat that does nothing but spit vitriol at those who are trying to change the direction of the GOP. So go luxuriate in your "one party is all we need" fantasyland. It will ensure that the Demorats never give us anything but empty rhetoric, which is all liberals seem to care about, anyway.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Wilson, you are so typical of the smug, superior, “I’m so speciaaaal” liberal gay Democrat that does nothing but spit vitriol at those who are trying to change the direction of the GOP.
There was a time when I was more supportive of gay Republicans. But it became clear that they are counterproductive. They facilitate the Larry Craigs and David Dreiers of the party, while the Christian nutcases who run the show utterly hate their guts.
There’s a point at which they have to ask themselves whether there’s any reason to stick with the Republican Party. I think the answer is to leave. Tell me, what have the Cabinettes done for you lately?
posted by Jorge on
ND30: My reaction to most of that was that I begin to see why so many people love… Hillary. By this I mean that when you look at the Democratic candidates who are the most hypocritical on gay issues, it’s the so-called “fresh-faced” or idealist/visionary candidates–because they’re really only pretending. They have no real convictions and are only out to play cutthroat politics. I could be wrong.
posted by Bobby on
“Speaking of conservative websites has anyone seen Conservapedia’s article on homosexuality?”
—I didn’t like it, but if Wikipedia allowed more objectivity then there would be no need for conservapedia to provide the other side of the coin.
Besides, there’s plenty of dirt in the gay community. I wish the article had some positive things about gays, but at least when you type Alan Turing they mention he was gay.
You know, conservatives are doing what liberals have done to us for years, exclude our opinions. The liberal media and liberal websites like wikipedia consider conservative opinions to be “hate speech.” So our only recourse is to create our own idelogical communities.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
booby: “…if Wikipedia allowed more objectivity then there would be no need for conservapedia to provide the other side of the coin….liberal websites like wikipedia consider conservative opinions to be “hate speech.””
Seriously dude…there are so many things wrong with your post I don’t know where to begin. Wikipedia has no political slant…where do you get the notion that it does? You state that Wikipedia doesn’t value objectivity. WHAT?? That is the whole point of a user-moderated site!! And as for Conservapedia showing the other side of the coin, what sort of racist/delusional anti-science coins do you carry? I know you are smart from some of your other postings here but, come one, try a little harder not to sound so whacked out and brain-dead.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Colorado, I missed that sidestep of yours… glad to see you agree you were wrong about GayPatriot being a gay Republican instead of the correct “conservative gay” blog.
Anyway that you try to spin from your GayLeft Democrat-apologist’s perspective, people who are gay and who aren’t 100% into carrying the GayLeft’s water bucket are all wrong… your belief in that monopoly on the truth always gets in the way of reality, bubba.
No need to apologize for the mistakes in this thread, save your apologist’s breath for defending the Dems. Again.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
What was that MM? Was there a point to your last post? Hold on one sec while I re-read it…nope, no point found. Please try again later.
MM : “…save your apologist’s breath for defending the Dems.”
What are you on about now? When have I ever defended the democrats? Why would I?
PS
I’m serious, what is your point here?
posted by Jim on
What a phony dichotomy. First, as you point out, the audience nearly laughed the man out of the room when he bared his true, stupid, primitive heart by claiming that gay people simply did not exist within the borders of Iran. Second, as you do not point out, we should expect better from the government of the United States than we do from the president of a vicious totalitarian Islamist theocracy. Ahmadinejad is beneath contempt; the Reserve Officer Training Corps is not. The proper response to a fool may indeed be laughter, but the proper response to a deliberate, sophisticated, scapegoating, duplicitous bigot is contempt.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL…..you realize that Columbia is home to two highly-esteemed professors, Eric Foner and Nicholas De Genova.
Foner has stated publicly that the only true heroes are those who find a way to defeat the American military.
De Genova has called for a “million Mogadishus” of US forces.
Given that Columbia endorses and supports these attitudes, what it makes obvious is that their whining about “discrimination” is nothing more than a smokescreen for their patently anti-American and anti-military bigotry.
posted by The Gay Recluse on
I have never been to this site before, but I am hardly encouraged by the weak analysis presented by Mr. Kirchik. As one who attended the event, I can assure you that the Columbia student body was by no means a single voice, and in any case, the debate was not about whether A-dad supports gay rights, but whether he can speak (I personally think that it helps to have idiots like this publicly air their views–essentially it made him the laughingstock.) A little more truth and a little less invective is in order, Mr. Kirchick. Sincerely, The Gay Recluse. http://thegayrecluse.com
posted by ETJB on
(1) As the Supreme Court so pointed out; a public college has little room to dicate who can and cannot come onto its campus to speak.
(2) The Iranian president probably got his first real taste of public criticism and dissent at that college. I listened to the speech and some one, possible the president of the college, tore him a new one.
(3) Professors have academic freedom. That does not mean that the University endorses everthing that a professor does or does not say.
posted by Gay but not buying it on
As several posters have already pointed out (Gayandpayingattention, The Gay Recluse), Mr. Kirchick makes some serious logical missteps in his article. He is comparing apples to oranges. I’m dumbfounded as to how he cannot see that.
posted by Brian Miller on
Once again, Republicrats and Demopublicans argue over who should be censored.
Why not allow Mahmoud and his critics alike a forum? After all, both wings of the Republicratic-Demopublican party reach into my pocket to throw big wads of taxpayer cash at Columbia and similar institutions. You’d think they’d stop being wannabe dictators for a few minutes and allow me to hear from all the players myself — without Wise And Holy Men to decide for me what I should or shouldn’t be able to see and hear.