Saturday, October 13, 2007
Columbia row raises questions about CMU policies
The Tartan Online: "In his now-infamous speech at Columbia University on Sept. 24, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared “We do not have homosexuals, like in your country ... we do not have this phenomenon.” This was one of many statements Ahmadinejad made that offended students and educators, leading Columbia and other universities to defend or revise their policies on whose views should be allowed on campus."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
This is a very interesting article and points out the important fact that a University is a place where open-expression should be permitted and encouraged in order to maintain the standards of higher education we strive for. I think that though the Colombia speech has sparked a lot of controversy and created anxiety through Columbia as well as other universities, it really is a great way to keep informed with what's going on in the world and how different views can be presented to you. Speeches of this nature spark an incentive to learn about what's going on that not very many things can come close to.
The university provides young men the higher education. The students should not only have more knowledge to learn but also more opportunities to meet and discuss the various issues no matter in society science or in nature science. From the process of learning, they also need to learn how to judge right and wrong, good and bad. Sometimes there would be no answer from judging because something is just not suitable to be absolutely judged. It just needs to stay in neutral position. After all, nobody is as same as another one.
The issue of free speech is really starting to annoy me. It should not just be at universities where talks like this can take place.
I am very pleased to know that CMU has a new policy for talks on campus, and that they are moving forward with educating its students about what is going on.
Grr...I am just feeling really fed up with the world right now.
I think that Carnegie Mellon, being so diverse should encourage speakers who talk about why education is important for blacks however if a speaker is going to offend any race of people they will probably offend a lot of people at CMU since we represent almost every race. Free speech does enable these people to speak their views however not wherever they want, and certainly not on a college campus
It's a good thing this was at such an educated, open-minded university. It's an interesting line that still exists in our society. I can't imagine any of the universities in the south allowing something like this. It would end in bloodshed. It's an interesing thought that we still have that kind of division in our country. I don't know if having him come and speak to a university about how intolerant he is was a good idea. Maybe it started out as something educating. Maybe what he was supposed to talk about was going to be a topic of relevant discussion. It sounds like it ended up with everyone being offended.
Controversial speakers like this are important to present to students because we need to know that there are other opinions out there. While we see this speech as radical, there are at least some people out there who agree with him otherwise he would not be in power. Although I do not think that the Iranian president's remarks were inoffensive, I find it unwise of Columbia's president to introduce him in such an insulting manner. Taking that opinion of a man from jump is the kind of thing that keeps America at odds with countries such as Iran.
At the same time, universities must be careful when allowing any guest on their campus. There needs to be a balance between providing your students with an open world view and the physical danger presented by the entourage of the New Black Panther leader.
I'm not sure that I agree that the President's introduction was appropriate. Though he had a right to speak his opinion, it seems to me like the students weren't being presented with the facts on accusations against the speaker, and that they should have been given a more open-ended introduction that would allow them to make judgements of the speaker for themselves. But I support Columbia's decision to have such a controversial speaker because it's important for students to understand sentiments of other cultures, what rulers of other cultures are enforcing and believing, and also to figure out why they hold certain values or political beliefs. Being exposed to something you disagree with often helps you understand why you disagree in the first place.
I would also like to repsond to the comment about the South having to inability to accept such controversial speakers. It sounds as if everyone from the south is a closed-minded conservative, uneducated and lacking, not the will to, but even the ability to understand other points of view, and that we react violently to the unfamiliar or the disliked. Don't you think that a major university, for example The University of Texas at Austin, where students come from all over the country and all over the world to make up a student body of 50 thousand, has the same ability to process controversy and accept diversity? Sure there are a lot of smaller institutions of higher-education in the south where the students come from the surrounding areas and are less diverse, but it doesn't mean they are necessarly less educated or that their opinions are less valuable. The south deals with the same issues of race and sexual orientation that the north does, and while you frequently hear the overwhelming conservative opinion, there is a constant dialogue, especially in the student community, promoting more diverse opinions and policies. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that you don't have to be a Columbia student or a CMU student to understand sophisticated controversy and deal with it appropriately.
On one hand, I don't think that the introduction was giving the president a fair platform to begin speaking; but on the other, the reception to his speech probably wouldn't have differed much otherwise. It's good that we have a free speech policy is a good thing; the fact that we need a free speech policy is another issue overall.
How ignorant of the iranian president. he obviously is ambiguous to what goes on in his country because I can bet that I can find a considerable amount of homosexuals in Iran.
Post a Comment