Bret Stephens in the WSJ on whether the faculty of 1930’s Columbia would have invited the notorious man of that day to speak:

it’s unlikely that a committee led by Jacques Barzun, Mark van Doren, Lionel Trilling or other Columbia luminaries of the day would have had much use for “discussion” with the Führer (though it seems Columbia hosted a speech by Hans Luther, Hitler’s U.S. ambassador, in 1933).

What, then, would be the purpose of such an invitation? Columbia’s president, Lee Bollinger, offered a clue in a statement issued last week: “Columbia, as a community dedicated to learning and scholarship, is committed to confronting ideas–to understand the world as it is and as it might be,” he said. “Necessarily, on occasion this will bring us into contact with beliefs many, most or even all of us will find offensive and even odious. We trust our community, including our students, to be fully capable of dealing with these occasions, through dialogue and reason.”

That’s an interesting thought, coming from a man who won’t countenance an ROTC program on campus. But leave that aside. What’s more important is the question of how Columbia defines the set of ideas it believes are worth “confronting,” whether its confidence in “dialogue and reason” is well placed and, finally, whether confronting ideas is a sufficient condition for understanding the world.

In a March 1952 essay in Commentary magazine on “George Orwell and the Politics of Truth,” Trilling observed that “the gist of Orwell’s criticism of the liberal intelligentsia was that they refused to understand the conditioned way of life.” Orwell, he wrote, really knew what it was like to live under a totalitarian regime–unlike, say, George Bernard Shaw, who had “insisted upon remaining sublimely unaware of the Russian actuality,” or H.G. Wells, who had “pooh-poohed the threat of Hitler.” By contrast, Orwell “had the simple courage to point out that the pacifists preached their doctrine under condition of the protection of the British navy, and that, against Germany and Russia, Gandhi’s passive resistance would have been to no avail.”

Trilling took the point a step further, assailing the intelligentsia’s habit of treating politics as a “nightmare abstraction” and “pointing to the fearfulness of the nightmare as evidence of their sense of reality.” To put this in the context of Mr. Coatsworth’s hypothetical, Trilling might have said that in hosting and perhaps debating Hitler, Columbia’s faculty and students would not have been “confronting” him, much as they might have gulled themselves into believing they were.

Hitler at Columbia would merely have been a man at a podium, offering his “ideas” on this or that, and not the master of a huge terror apparatus bearing down on you. To suggest that such an event amounts to a confrontation, or offers a perspective on reality, is a bit like suggesting that one “confronts” a wild animal by staring at it through its cage at a zoo.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 25th, 2007 at 10:47 am and is filed under General, Religion, War, radical chic. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.