David Hines
Speaking of liberty...
By David Hines
To the consternation of many, Columbia University recently invited Mahmoud Ahmedinejad to speak. There are many things to find screwy about this event.
As a sop to the protesters, the institution's president berated the invited guest before he had said a word. This is a breach of millennia-old traditions of Levantine hospitality as documented, among other places, in the Bible. Once you leave your throat might be slit, but while you're in the tent you're royalty.
Protesters, steeped in the rhetoric of politicians, decided that Mahmoud doesn't get a right to free speech. He might convince somebody that the American political rhetoric is overblown and not entirely accurate.
Despite its stated goal of airing all sorts of viewpoints, the university had refused to permit a talk by the Minutemen, the activist group concerned about border insecurity. Maybe the administrators thought Ahmadinejad would be easier to refute.
When the guy spoke, he considerably softened the rhetoric he uses at home. He loves everybody, he says, but refuses to address Israel by its name, instead calling it the "Zionist state." As our friend, he invites us to join his religion and promises dire consequences if we don't. This speech was an exercise in sophistry.
There are numerous lessons in this experience.
The United States has become a rude place. Those who do not agree with us are to be castigated and suppressed. Hospitality is conditional, demanding agreement even if it's known that you don't agree.
The Constitution does not specify "citizens" in delineating who is entitled to rights; it specifies "persons." The Declaration of Independence says these rights predate government, and are God-given. Yet this guy is thought by some to be eminently suppressable. Yeah, he's sophistic, but if somebody is completely nonsensical, what's the problem? Who would believe him, or even bother to listen?
The university deemed this guy airable, but not the Minutemen. Is he more credible than concerned Americans? It would seem that the university, steeped in liberalism, would invite the Iranian president because he, also, opposes President Bush. The Minutemen, however, are politically incorrect to academics.
The educational value of the university comes into question. Somebody considered the Minutemen too dangerous to be heard, but not a foreign politician. It was decided that the students were too stupid to judge the Iranian's words for themselves, and required a foreword gainsaying him before he spoke. Apparently the faculty believe that they have not prepared these students properly.
Many of these collegians are preparing to participate in international relations, doing government work. We have seen that agencies have lacked critical skills, such as mastery of languages. Yet protesters would have these students enter that work without any real exposure to the people they shall be analyzing. Doesn't make much sense to me.
The event demonstrates the love of jingoistic speech. President Bush called this guy evil, so folks don't want to hear any opposing viewpoints. That might shake the certainty that we have every right to bomb the Iranian people.
Ahmadinejad came across like a typical politician. As with many of our leaders, he talks tough for the base, then modifies his stances when talking to the other party. He can say two opposing things at the same time. He offers the hand of friendship while at the same time waving the iron fist.
And there's the real danger people perceive. Americans have been so conditioned to accept disingenuous political rhetoric that this guy starts to seem normal and sensible. The cultivated gullibility of American voters is to be exploited only by American demagogues, not foreign ones.
Throughout this episode, people have demonstrated a lack of faith in Americans' critical thinking — including that of top university students. There is some basis to the concern. For about a century our schools have been dumbed down. Universities have undergone grade inflation. The educational process is geared less to instilling critical thinking than to acting as indoctrinator and gatekeeper of political participation.
The attempt to manage content — to limit what may be heard or read — is about as un-American as you can get. Yet it is standard operating procedure in the new Amerika. Efforts are made to exclude Ron Paul from debates. Four years ago Alan Keyes was excluded. The Minutemen can't take the podium that Ahmadinejad did. Even AOL promises to manage content — for our benefit, of course.
Give me the information I want, not what you think I need to hear. I may come up with conclusions with which you disagree, but they will be informed conclusions. They will not be the stuff of myth, sacrificing accuracy for homogeneity. Informational paternalism is a recipe for bad decisions.
© David Hines
To the consternation of many, Columbia University recently invited Mahmoud Ahmedinejad to speak. There are many things to find screwy about this event.
As a sop to the protesters, the institution's president berated the invited guest before he had said a word. This is a breach of millennia-old traditions of Levantine hospitality as documented, among other places, in the Bible. Once you leave your throat might be slit, but while you're in the tent you're royalty.
Protesters, steeped in the rhetoric of politicians, decided that Mahmoud doesn't get a right to free speech. He might convince somebody that the American political rhetoric is overblown and not entirely accurate.
Despite its stated goal of airing all sorts of viewpoints, the university had refused to permit a talk by the Minutemen, the activist group concerned about border insecurity. Maybe the administrators thought Ahmadinejad would be easier to refute.
When the guy spoke, he considerably softened the rhetoric he uses at home. He loves everybody, he says, but refuses to address Israel by its name, instead calling it the "Zionist state." As our friend, he invites us to join his religion and promises dire consequences if we don't. This speech was an exercise in sophistry.
There are numerous lessons in this experience.
The United States has become a rude place. Those who do not agree with us are to be castigated and suppressed. Hospitality is conditional, demanding agreement even if it's known that you don't agree.
The Constitution does not specify "citizens" in delineating who is entitled to rights; it specifies "persons." The Declaration of Independence says these rights predate government, and are God-given. Yet this guy is thought by some to be eminently suppressable. Yeah, he's sophistic, but if somebody is completely nonsensical, what's the problem? Who would believe him, or even bother to listen?
The university deemed this guy airable, but not the Minutemen. Is he more credible than concerned Americans? It would seem that the university, steeped in liberalism, would invite the Iranian president because he, also, opposes President Bush. The Minutemen, however, are politically incorrect to academics.
The educational value of the university comes into question. Somebody considered the Minutemen too dangerous to be heard, but not a foreign politician. It was decided that the students were too stupid to judge the Iranian's words for themselves, and required a foreword gainsaying him before he spoke. Apparently the faculty believe that they have not prepared these students properly.
Many of these collegians are preparing to participate in international relations, doing government work. We have seen that agencies have lacked critical skills, such as mastery of languages. Yet protesters would have these students enter that work without any real exposure to the people they shall be analyzing. Doesn't make much sense to me.
The event demonstrates the love of jingoistic speech. President Bush called this guy evil, so folks don't want to hear any opposing viewpoints. That might shake the certainty that we have every right to bomb the Iranian people.
Ahmadinejad came across like a typical politician. As with many of our leaders, he talks tough for the base, then modifies his stances when talking to the other party. He can say two opposing things at the same time. He offers the hand of friendship while at the same time waving the iron fist.
And there's the real danger people perceive. Americans have been so conditioned to accept disingenuous political rhetoric that this guy starts to seem normal and sensible. The cultivated gullibility of American voters is to be exploited only by American demagogues, not foreign ones.
Throughout this episode, people have demonstrated a lack of faith in Americans' critical thinking — including that of top university students. There is some basis to the concern. For about a century our schools have been dumbed down. Universities have undergone grade inflation. The educational process is geared less to instilling critical thinking than to acting as indoctrinator and gatekeeper of political participation.
The attempt to manage content — to limit what may be heard or read — is about as un-American as you can get. Yet it is standard operating procedure in the new Amerika. Efforts are made to exclude Ron Paul from debates. Four years ago Alan Keyes was excluded. The Minutemen can't take the podium that Ahmadinejad did. Even AOL promises to manage content — for our benefit, of course.
Give me the information I want, not what you think I need to hear. I may come up with conclusions with which you disagree, but they will be informed conclusions. They will not be the stuff of myth, sacrificing accuracy for homogeneity. Informational paternalism is a recipe for bad decisions.
© David Hines
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
