The Volokh Conspiracy - Washington Post on Ahmadinejad at Columbia:

I missed this when it was published on Dec. 17th, but it's awful, so bad that I'm almost embarrassed for the author. Just to give you a flavor:

(1) The article starts this way: "When the head of Columbia University suggested that free speech was banned in Tehran, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad not only disagreed, he also invited Lee C. Bollinger to come and see for himself. The retort won Ahmadinejad applause on the New York campus and accolades back home."

(2) Columbia is home to many far-left professors who specialize in the Middle East, including Joseph Massad, who, as VC readers will recall, argues that there is a "Gay International" conspiracy to impose Western notions of homosexuality on Arab countries. But only "Jewish students" at Columbia are given the appellation "radical" by author Dafna Linzer. (The Post later issued a correction for the "radical" characterization.)

(3) Seventy Columbia professors were initial signators to a letter attacking President Lee Bollinger. Sixty-one professors initially signed a dissent to this letter. Linzer's characterization? "More than 100 faculty members signed a letter protesting Bollinger's leadership. And in closed-door meetings, some of them have accused him of pandering to donors, selling out Middle East scholarship and embarrassing the Ivy League institution.... In response, a smaller, rival faction, which includes a large number of Jewish faculty members, wrote its own letter in defense of Bollinger and urging careful reviews of tenured positions for two Palestinian professors." The letter, in fact (which you can read for yourself here), made no mention whatsoever of "two Palestinian professors", or, for that matter, "careful review" of tenure files. (It did, correctly, defend the proposition that there is no reason outsiders to the university should not comment on what they see as "inappropriate forms of teaching, allegations of intimidation or harassment, or the distortion of basic historical or scientific facts," by faculty).

(4) The article spends ten paragraphs quoting or paraphrasing professors critical of Bollinger, including repeating completely unsubstantiated allegations against him. Not a single paragraph quotes or paraphrases professors who praise Bollinger (except the paragraph above noting that that a defense "by a smaller, rival faction" was made, but not elaborating on the content), much less anyone who thinks Ahmadinejad should not have been invited to begin with, or who thinks Columbia has been overly generous to its hyper-politicized Middle Eastern Studies scholars. Bollinger himself gets two short sentences to defend himself.

And yes, the Post piece was supposed to be a news story, not an op-ed.

UPDATE: A reader has forwarded to me email correspondence showing that Steven Holmes, a national desk editor, was responsible for inserting the word "radical" into Ms. Linzer's text. As far as I know, primary responsibility for the rest of the article's flaws lies with Ms. Linzer.

	[David Bernstein, December 27, 2007 at 7:27pm] Trackbacks Washington Post on Ahmadinejad at Columbia: I missed this when it was published on Dec. 17th, but it's awful, so bad that I'm almost embarrassed for the author. Just to give you a flavor: (1) The article starts this way: "When the head of Columbia University suggested that free speech was banned in Tehran, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad not only disagreed, he also invited Lee C. Bollinger to come and see for himself. The retort won Ahmadinejad applause on the New York campus and accolades back home." (2) Columbia is home to many far-left professors who specialize in the Middle East, including Joseph Massad, who, as VC readers will recall, argues that there is a "Gay International" conspiracy to impose Western notions of homosexuality on Arab countries. But only "Jewish students" at Columbia are given the appellation "radical" by author Dafna Linzer. (The Post later issued a correction for the "radical" characterization.) (3) Seventy Columbia professors were initial signators to a letter attacking President Lee Bollinger. Sixty-one professors initially signed a dissent to this letter. Linzer's characterization? "More than 100 faculty members signed a letter protesting Bollinger's leadership. And in closed-door meetings, some of them have accused him of pandering to donors, selling out Middle East scholarship and embarrassing the Ivy League institution.... In response, a smaller, rival faction, which includes a large number of Jewish faculty members, wrote its own letter in defense of Bollinger and urging careful reviews of tenured positions for two Palestinian professors." The letter, in fact (which you can read for yourself here), made no mention whatsoever of "two Palestinian professors", or, for that matter, "careful review" of tenure files. (It did, correctly, defend the proposition that there is no reason outsiders to the university should not comment on what they see as "inappropriate forms of teaching, allegations of intimidation or harassment, or the distortion of basic historical or scientific facts," by faculty). (4) The article spends ten paragraphs quoting or paraphrasing professors critical of Bollinger, including repeating completely unsubstantiated allegations against him. Not a single paragraph quotes or paraphrases professors who praise Bollinger (except the paragraph above noting that that a defense "by a smaller, rival faction" was made, but not elaborating on the content), much less anyone who thinks Ahmadinejad should not have been invited to begin with, or who thinks Columbia has been overly generous to its hyper-politicized Middle Eastern Studies scholars. Bollinger himself gets two short sentences to defend himself. And yes, the Post piece was supposed to be a news story, not an op-ed. UPDATE: A reader has forwarded to me email correspondence showing that Steven Holmes, a national desk editor, was responsible for inserting the word "radical" into Ms. Linzer's text. As far as I know, primary responsibility for the rest of the article's flaws lies with Ms. Linzer.