The New Criterion

In his post, Stefan Beck asks, “But in the grand scheme of international relations, why should anyone lose sleep over an anti-Semitic nut getting the dressing-down he so richly deserves?” His point is well taken. But it raises a further question: Why would a university like Columbia insert itself into the “grand scheme of international relations” to begin with?

I suspect the answer lies in Columbia’s commitment to “globalism.”

Under Columbia President Lee Bollinger’s watch, the university has a history of usurping the prerogatives of our State Department and engaging the West’s enemies. Three years ago, as part of its World Leaders Forum, the university was going to welcome Hugo Chavez, who canceled his speech at the last minute. And then there was Dean of Columbia’s School of International Public Affairs Lisa Anderson’s teleconference with Muhammar Qaddafi in the following year.

Bollinger’s “globalist” pretensions are another facet of his commitment to “diversity” and “free speech.” In Mr. Bollinger’s “tolerant” world, holocaust-denying dictators with genocidal intentions and nuclear aspirations deserve a hearing. However, groups opposing unlawful immigration to our country, like the Minutemen, do not. One is led to conclude that Mr. Bollinger’s “globalism,” like his commitment to “diversity” and “free speech,” is anti-American and anti-Western, if not in intent then in effect.

Either way, Bollinger has a problem with America and its traditions. Take Christmas, for example. James Panero wrote about Bollinger’s non-Christmas Christmas card two years ago. Consider the card he sent out this year:

On the back of the card the sinister image is explained:

A Mexican boy races against time to find his father in New York City before an impostor steals his inheritance. Padre Nuestro, a film written and directed by Christopher Zalla (SoA’04) and produced by Benjamin Odell (SoA’o4), won the Sundance Film Festival 2007 Grand Jury Prize for best dramatic film . Set to be released nationwide by IFC Films in May 2008, this tale of suspense shows how identities are won and lost in the quest to fulfill our deepest human longings. In 2007, the School of the Arts celebrated the selection of twenty Columbia-linked films for screening at Sundance, a record for the University.

As Stefan suggested about the prospect of a Columbia faculty field trip to shake hands with Ahmadinejad, Mr. Bollinger’s card defies the imagination of so-called “conservative paranoia.” His “diversity” card is something one might expect from “an innovative and non-traditional” institution like, say, Boricua College. But, not Columbia, which has played an important role in American life since its founding in 1754 as King’s College.

Bollinger’s card is a symptom of his single-minded pursuit of “global thought” in the name of “diversity” and “free speech.” Those Columbia alumni and trustees who still take pride in the school’s tradition and place in American history should be alarmed. But perhaps the multicultural malaise has progressed so far that even Columbia’s alumni and trustees may no longer consider the university’s long, distinctively American tradition authoritative enough to discriminate in its favor.