Central Connecticut State University is doing its part for international diplomacy.  The campus newspaper, The Central Reporter, tells us that in late September CCSU professor of political science Ghassan El-Eid brought a dozen CCSC students "to attend a dinner with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran," who was in New York for a meeting of the U.N. General Assembly. 

President Ahmadinejad, of course, has had some practice talking to American college students. Back in 2007, Columbia University occasioned some controversy by inviting him to speak at its World Leaders Forum.  Stinging from criticism of the decision, Columbia's president Lee Bollinger announced he would use the occasion to annoy his guest.  As the Chronicle of Higher Education put it:

"Mr. Bollinger said he would introduce the president by issuing "sharp challenges" to his denial of the Holocaust, stated goal of wiping Israel off the map, support for terrorism, defiance of sanctions stemming from Iran's nuclear ambitions, and suppression of human rights and civil liberties."

Bollinger has long been a champion of vigorous free speech (The Tolerant Society, 1986; Images of a Free Press, 1991; Eternally Vigilant, 2002; Uninhibited, Robust, and Wide-Open, 2010)--at least in principle.  His record in practice is a bit uneven.  In 2006, for example, after a group of Columbia students violently interrupted and ended a scheduled talk by members of the Minuteman Project, he had trouble finding anything to say, but after a few months issued an anemic letter saying that Columbia had investigated and taken appropriate steps to discipline the students who had jumped the stage and assaulted the speaker.   He didn't disclose the punishments, but eventually it came out that those found guilty were merely given "warnings" which were put on their transcripts temporarily, to be removed at the end of 2008.  One of the students, Monique Dols, gloated, "It's a light punishment; it's a slap on the wrist. It's a victory for free speech and anti-racism." 

When it came to Ahmadinejad's visit to the World Leaders Forum, however, Bollinger delivered what the Chronicle described as "a blistering critique."  The event remains an odd milestone for the contemporary campus.  By inviting Ahmadinejad, Columbia University bestowed a signal honor on one of the worst actors in contemporary world politics, and then tried to reverse the meaning of the occasion by turning the guest into the object of contumely.  Bollinger earned both praise for being tough and criticism for being rude and undermining "his own ideals of free speech and academic freedom." 

Ahmadinejad turned Bollinger's assault to his own rhetorical advantage.  He began his speech by reproving Bollinger.  The Washington Post's transcript noted the applause: 

At the outset I want to complain a bit from the person who read this political statement against me. In Iran tradition requires that when we demand a person to invite to be a speaker we actually respect our students and the professors by allowing them to make their own judgment and we don't think it's necessary before this speech is even given to come in with a series of claims...

(APPLAUSE)

... and to attempt in a so-called manner to provide vaccination of some sort to our students and our faculty.

I think the text read by the dear gentleman here, more than addressing me, was an insult to information and the knowledge of the audience here, present here. In a university environment we must allow people to speak their mind, to allow everyone to talk so that the truth is eventually revealed by all.

Certainly he took more than all the time I was allocated to speak, and that's fine with me. We'll just leave that to add up with the claims of respect for freedom and the freedom of speech that's given to us in this country.

Ahmadinejad, having presided over judicial murder of his political opponents and bloody suppression of public protest of his regime, is no one's idea of a friend of free speech or academic freedom, but he is a clever tactician.  Bollinger played to his own audience of academics eager to hear a blustery put-down of a tyrant.  But Ahmadinejad played to a world stage as a man witnessing against the hypocrisy of the West. 

Which brings us back to the outing for Central Connecticut State University students.  By this point, the Iranian president has perfected his pitch.  He knows American college students have a tenuous grasp of history and world politics and that their deepest longing is to be "inclusive." And he serves up exactly that.  The student newspaper reports that the students described him as kind to everyone who asked a question,"  "not as radical as the western media portray him," and--of course--"inclusive." 

This was too much for one of my board members, Jay Bergman, who teaches history at Central Connecticut, and to whom I'm indebted for this glimpse into the vacancy of the soul of American higher education. Bergman recounted the affair in the Litchfield County Times, complete with a Bartlett's full of Ahmadinejad's venomous declarations. 

Professor Ghassan El-Eid, who arranged the event, is something of a campus celebrity.  According to the university he is a political consultant for MSNBC, has "granted numerous national TV and newspaper interviews," and "has also been heard on NPR and the Pacific Radio Network."  Which I suppose is a way of saying that the honor granted the undergraduate Central Connecticut students to dine with the dictator was no accident.  

Teresa Wagner's lawsuit against the University of Iowa law school ended a few weeks ago when a jury declared that the school did not submit her to political discrimination when it rejected her application for a job. Wagner made a second allegation--that her equal protection rights were violated because the law school held her political activism against her--which was not ruled upon, the judge declaring a mistrial because the jury couldn't reach a decision, leaving open the possibility of future action by Wagner's attorney. Indeed, the Chronicle reports that Wagner has filed papers asking for a retrial on all counts. 

The first verdict wasn't unexpected.  Wagner had to prove that faculty members voted against her for her political views, which run well to the Right.  But of course, nobody on hiring committees ever says outright, "She's a conservative--she's out!"  They know better--Schmidt cites one witness who "testified that no faculty member would 'be stupid enough' to cite politics as the reason for turning down an applicant"--and besides, they don't have to.  In the hiring process there are so many stages and variables that it's easy to drop a conservative candidate for a dozen other more or less non-political reasons.  "She isn't a good fit," one might say, or "We already have strengths in her area, we need someone in another field," another could argue, or "I don't think she handled questions very well in the interview" could be the line.  The outcome is assured and nobody needs to raise delicate matters along the way.

In Wagner's case, a clear distinction came up in her qualifications relative the person who got the job: She was one of five candidates chosen from a pool of 50 applicants invited to present to the university's faculty.

But that enthusiasm died soon after her presentation. The job was given to Matt Williamson, a candidate who had never practiced law, had no published works and was an ardent liberal who frequently criticized Republicans, according to testimony and court documents presented last week to the jury.

That a candidate who never practiced law and had no publications should prevail over Wagner sounds fishy.  The Chronicle story relates, too, that the person hired resigned a year later for "poor performance."  One could also mention the disparate-outcome argument so beloved by liberals: the law school has one registered Republican and 46 registered Democrats.  Finally, one should note the email law professor and former associate dean Jon Carlson sent to the law school dean after the first rejection in which he worried that the faculty would balk at the hiring of Wagner due to "her politics (and especially her activism about it)."  

But the faculty had an answer: she botched the presentation.  When asked about teaching "legal analysis," an important part of the job, they say, she declined.  Several witnesses repeated that criticism, even though Wagner never recalls saying so (she showed her pre-interview notes in court that displayed her intention to teach the subject), and a couple of witnesses agreed with her, including Carlson and Mark Osiel, another professor in the law school. The law school taped Wagner's presentation and could have offered the tape to settle the question. However, the university erased the tape months after the hiring process had ended.

The coda to this story is equally frustrating. Just last week reporter Jason Clayworth spoke with four members of the jury who told him that jurors did believe that political discrimination had taken place, but that they couldn't hold one person responsible. This outcome shows how far universities are able to fiddle with the hiring process with impunity.  Here we have a jury convinced that political discrimination took place, but they can't convict because they have the wrong defendant.  But the plaintiff couldn't pick another defendant; indeed, federal law dictated that the dean be made the "responsible party." So people who feel they've been treated unfairly face a Catch-22, and universities can carry on as usual.

In 1956 my Jamaica high school basketball team played Far Rockaway, a league rival. At the end of the first quarter I had 19 points and our team was ahead by twenty. The result of the game was already determined. I felt confident of breaking the school scoring record and perhaps the city record as well, but to my dismay the coach took me out of the game. I was furious. Yet in retrospect, he was right.

Had I broken the school record, it would have come at the expense of a marginal team. Moreover, it would have embarrassed the other players. My coach understood what I did not.

Now we hear the story of Grinnell College sophomore guard named Jack Taylor who scored 138 points in a recent game against First Baptist Bible College. While this point total obliterated the college record and even pro stars like LeBron James are eager to see the video tape, I find this story depressing. Why didn't Grinnell's coach, David Arsenault bench his star player who took 108 shots - missing 56 - in a game won by 75 points? 

The once decent standard of not embarrassing a rival has been interred along with giving bench-warmers a chance to play in a one sided victory. "Kicking" an opponent when he is down was something college athletes were once told to avoid. That, of course, was yesteryear when competition counted and records were set that had real meaning. 

As I see it, there isn't anything reasonable about one player taking 108 shots in a game whose outcome was not in question. Whatever happened to sportsmanship in college sports? Instead of applauding this performance as television hosts have, it should be criticized. Imagine "pressing" all game in a 75 point margin of victory.

During college basketball and football games, there is the ritualistic suggestion by the NCAA that athletics build character. After this performance at Grinnell that bromide should be a source of embarrassment. It is bad enough that players routinely preen in front of the television camera after a dunk. It is sickening to hear players curse at one another and engage in verbal intimidation. Exploiting weak athletes by piling on is yet the latest perversion in college sports. My guess is Jack Taylor will be a model, a source of emulation. And a coach, who should know better, is also likely to represent a new bench standard.

College basketball is a game that can build character when talented players restrain personal ambition for team goals. It happened last season at Kentucky with six teammates drafted into the professional ranks. Of course, at Kentucky academic life is a meaningless after thought since what happens on the hardwood is all that counts. Yet Coach Calipari, despite his reputation for challenging academic standards, does teach something about team play.

Jack Taylor, by all appearances, seems to be a sensible young man. Perhaps he is embarrassed by all the attention. He should be. The game in this instance was converted into a gladiatorial event with the opposition gored into submission. Some may call that basketball; I call it exploitation.

The Office of Civil Rights' mandated procedures for investigating sexual assault are tilted heavily against the accused party. The institution can hire "neutral fact-finders" who produce the equivalent of a grand jury pr