Interesting. Very insightful.

I'd add one more thing to the list. Iran is seen as weaker than the US and so there's sympathy for "the little guy." A common left-leaning response to domination of the weak by the strong is to favor the weak rather than to favor rule of law.

A common left-leaning response to domination of the weak by the strong is to favor the weak rather than to favor rule of law.

That's Evan Sayett's entire thesis of leftism. And to an extent, I think you're both right: Postmodern theory is all about favoring the "weak" against the "strong." And I have left-leaning friends who self-describe in the same way: "I'm in favor of the little guy..."

(In contrast, I try favor what I think is the *good* guy (or stance, rather), whether weak or strong. Sometimes weak guys are evil, also. But when you're in favor of moral relativism, and eschew absolutist words like "good" and "evil", "weak versus strong" is a nice unambiguous substitute.)

The problem is, however, it only goes so far. Lefty professors don't side with a conservative because he's a minority in their department. "Liberals" will stand up (resoundingly so) in response to stories of persecuted gays in, say, Wyoming -- but not regarding stories of persecuted gays (and Bahaiis, Jews, women, and Christians) in Iran. When leftist governments have taken charge in various nations, their record regarding minority rights has been universally awful. In the gay community, black gays complain that racism is worse within that community than in the rest of society.

So that theory seems to describe a big part of the mental process (the admitted one, anyway), but there's something else going on in there which doesn't fit the rule.

A big part of my psycho-political quest has been to understand that unidentified thing, but it's been difficult: In my experience, the last thing you get when you ask such questions ("Why aren't you very bothered by A's treatment of gays?") is a straight answer. (I would love one, by the way.)

And in a way, I think that difficulty is the biggest clue I've noticed yet as to what it is.

I figured I'd relay the question to a few people associated with GLBT issues at Columbia. Here's one response I got (copied from email, so I may not have removed all page breaks);

Ryan,

Today, Everyone Allied Against Homophobia participated in the Columbia Coalition's rally. Below I have copied the statement that we read during the rally. If you have any further questions regarding our position, please feel free to e-mail us again at sqa@columbia.edu. Also, if you plan to use part of this speech in a published article or paper, I would appreciate it if you could send us a copy for our records.

Thank you,
Rachel Gerson
President
EAAH

The executive board of Everyone Allied Against Homophobia, the queer and allied anti-homophobia taskforce at Columbia, stands here today, not to speak for gay and lesbian and allied citizens of Iran, but to speak for ourselves and our group. The human rights violations against gay and lesbian Iranians by President Ahmadinejad�s administration both astounds and disgusts us. It is a well-known fact that President Ahmadinejad condones persecution, physical violence and even execution of gay and lesbian people. According to the Human Rights Watch, Ahmadinejad supports the use of gangs that raid homes and private places in search of same-sex conduct, despite his claim today that there are no homosexuals
in Iran.

Less than a month into his term as president of Iran, in July 2005, Ahmadinejad presided over the execution of two teenagers for being homosexual. The two teenagers were hanged in a public square. The official reason given was that one of the young men raped a child. However, human rights advocates hold that the true reason for their executions was solely based on their �deviant� sexual behavior, that is, sexual acts between men. This execution is unforgivable, and for a prominent leader on the world stage to condone these executions furthers homophobia and violence against gay and lesbian men and women around the world. Homophobia is not an Iranian phenomenon, characteristic of all Iranians or even unique to the Ahmadinejad regime, as we see it daily across the world and in the U.S., but nonetheless it is the Iranian government's paticularly brutal policies, including torture and nearly complete removl of gay and lesbian Iraians' right to speech and association as gay and lesbian, that is the object of our protest.

We do not stand here speaking for gay and lesbian Iranians and we do not stand here speaking for all gay and lesbian men and women across the world. We stand here as a united group of Columbia students, asking you to bear witness to acts of violence against gay and lesbian men and women across the world, and seeing these acts, to strengthen our own commitment to fighting homophobia and acts of violence in our own community.

It's bad enough that we have to open our door to people like this any time they want to verbally assault us at the UN.

President Bolinger's speech, where he calls the Iranian pres. a "petty and cruel dictator."

I was glad he took such a stance! I still don't know if it was a good move, but Bolinger was strikingly brave for a college administrator.

Ahmadinejad called his criticism "an immunization" -- and that may have been true, who knows. But I'm glad he did it anyway. Haven't seen the video, but I hear Ahmadinejad looked uncomfortable.

Thanks, also, for posting the letter above -- a very reasonable response, to the author's credit.

But it doesn't answer (nor could it, since it's not from the responsible parties) the question: Why does the university afford Ahmadinejad a high pedestal, while shutting down speech by members of the military or Minutemen.

Well, ya know, they didn't let Ahmedinejad recruit for the military on campus either. ;-)

Well, ya know, they didn't let Ahmedinejad recruit for the military on campus either. ;-)

LOL! Too funny!