50 CommentsThe Columbia University College Republicans have released a new statement unequivocally denying claims that the organization was in the process of inviting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak on campus. Notably, this letter has been signed by every CUCR board member.
Yesterday, we responded to the Spectator headline, “CUCR plans to invite Ahmadinejad to campus” with a statement from the club denying any plans or intent to extend said invitation. Spec cited documents including an alleged cost breakdown of the proposal, and a “leaked” invitation to the president which can be found here. Bwog was also a recipient of the supposed invitation on February 14, but instead confirmed it to be false with CUCR upon receipt.
Without further ado, the newest statement from CUCR:
To the Editors of Spectator and Bwog:
The Columbia University College Republicans, as a united Executive Board, would like to take this opportunity to make clear once and for all that our organization has NO intention of inviting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to campus, and we have never intended to do so. At no meeting has Ahmadinejad been floated as a potential speaker; at no meeting has Ahmadinejad been discussed on our board’s agenda; and at no meeting has any vote been taken on the possibility, realistic or otherwise, of inviting Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia University.
In the effort of clearing up some facts about current news coverage: CUCR has no connections to private donors in either Abu Dhabi or Dubai. We do not believe that President Ahmadinejad’s appearance would foster a constructive conversation about the role of religion in government. The board does not think that the president’s visit would help bring about a two-state solution in Palestine.
In that vein, CUCR would again request that the Spectator remove or amend its coverage of this issue in the interest of journalistic integrity.
Signed,
The Executive Board of the Columbia University College Republicans
Tyler Trumbach
Executive DirectorTaylor Thompson
Communications DirectorKate Christensen
Social DirectorDavid Paszko
Director of FinanceDavid Bowles
Intergroup Affairs DirectorJesse Eiseman
Creative DirectorWilliam Prasifka
PresidentThomas Callander
Director of OperationsRishi Kodali
Public Relations DirectorNashoba Santhanam
Regent Creative Director
Loading …
50 Comments
@bwog ftw Wait, why does this even matter?
I mean … who even reads Spec?
@Anonymous Wow bwog, way to censor anything with the spec article.
@THE ESSENCE It is easy to see who is at fault.
Given dealings with the same organization which is CUCR, Bwog does not misreport, while Spectator does. Now Spec is trying to cover its butt and defend its journalistic integrity, or what’s left of it.
@This is pretty simple Ok so Spec is saying that some members of CUCR wanted to invite Ahma, and Bwog is saying that CUCR is denying this. These are not mutually exclusive statements. The question is whether CUCR is lying now, and asking them if they are lying isn’t journalism, it’s just wasting time.
Bwog claims they got the same letter spec did. Clearly it came from somewhere. WHO FUCKING SENT IT? This would answer 99% of the questions people have.
@Anonymous Exactly – what Spectator has reported is not at odds with any facts here – they simply reported that some CUCR members have done something privately, while publicly acting in the opposite manner.
Is that really so hard to imagine, particularly for a political group? It happens in politics all the time!
@Anonymous The response.
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2012/02/28/college-republicans-board-denies-planning-ahmadinejad-invite-members-offer-conflicting-reports
@Anonymous http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2012/02/28/college-republicans-board-denies-planning-ahmadinejad-invite-members-offer-conflicting-reports
@B@B ops delivers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gZMdn4vD4k
@READ THE FED Bless this post.
@Anonymous My life is now complete
@Conspiracy Theory Maybe this is a ploy on the behalf of the Republicans to address the NYPD snooping on the MSA. Maybe they wanted to test the NYPD’s powers and so drafted this email to see if they would attract police attention. I’m not sure what their endgame might have been or how bwog/spec got a hold of it but that sounds pretty plausible to me. [5]
@Thats true, The CUCR would see, as bill o’reilly saw a couple semesters ago, that there is a certain M problem on campus, and with a lil help from their broom stick pushing friends, the nypd, the cucr can arrest 5 students in a drug ring, spy on the MSA, buy up all the john denver blow up toys and still have time to bring people together with supersoakers filled with a hand me down concoction of holywater, money, the tarot cards of Ronald McReagan and the tears from their youth when they did not get enough extra money for “happy feb 27, thank god we’re not poor” day.
I also think they miht have cake, but not only might that be a lie but it is also the only fact I cannot back up directly!
@Damien the Ruggles Guard Yeah! This is what I’ve been sayin’ for yearssssssssss.
@interesting. It’s curious how your political predispositions have impinged upon your ability to rank the plausibility of different logical scenarios, and to appropriately assign “benefit of the doubt.” I’m not suggesting that there isn’t some possibility that you are correct– without knowing the people in the organizations involved, I can’t exclude any alternative with complete certainty. Who knows– perhaps there is a Ron Paul fanatic somewhere in the Emirates, who thinks that what is missing from the ideological climate at Columbia is a willingness to listen to Ahmadinejad. He would probably have to suffer from some medical condition that would impair his ability to recall the fact that scores of Columbians came to see him at his last appearance, and that many were willing to honor him this year at a private reception. So there’s your guy– a Ron Paul fanatic living in the Emirates, or some other country in the Gulf, with a neurological impairment, and a fondness for the Columbia College Republicans.
@interesting. That was in response to “Maybe.”
@Anonymous The only reason I can come up with for Spec not taking the article down at this point is that someone is harboring a personal vendetta against a member in CUCR…
@Anonymous Why is that the only reason you can come up with? I’m not even disagreeing with you, I’m just interested.
@Maybe because they did their homework and had a legitimate story until CUCR saw it blowing up in their faces and circled the wagons.
It’s a shame that the Spec reporter is getting more crap than whatever bonehead CR leader initially leaked this (serious or non-serious) story.
@lol y’all got trolled
except bwog somehow
@People still care what the CUCR does or does not do on campus? Its not like they are a club of any real importance, expect for zombie reagan. That was a great party and was a moment that I will forever cherish when I look back at college.
@Anonymous everyone’sgettingrustled.jpeg
@Rebecca Black Everybody’s rustled.
Gotta get down to the spec office.
I see Mahmooooud!
@Spec right now http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kx9QEw-JWL0&feature=related
@hahaha I want subtitles for the vid about this whole fiasco!
@Anonymous it’s on the way, processing
@Blue State Does anyone else think it’s funny that the biggest think CUCR has done all year has denied that they might bring a controversial speaker to campus?
@A Republican I have a friend on the CUCR board. An important announcement about a speaker will be coming soon!
@Anonymous Oh, you mean Herman Cain?
@A Republican And an additional speaker
@Anonymous For the sake of everyone’s sanity, let’s hope it isn’t Santorum. Things are frothy enough on campus as it is.
@interesting. I’m curious as to how you felt about the prospect of an Ahmadinejad visit in the various instances that it was proposed, and indeed when it happened four years ago. I’m even more curious how the 17 people and counting who replied favorably to your desire not to see (or have others see) Santorum thought about Ahmadinejad. Given that despite his occasional verbal miscues and his arguably intolerant tendencies to reinforce certain traditional sexual mores, Santorum has earnestly committed himself to the defense of all innocent human life to the best of his personal understanding– whereas Ahmadinejad unashamedly has committed himself to the destruction of innocent human life and to the destruction of a nation– I dare say there’s something wrong with your ability to reason if Santorum is the one, of those two, whose views you deem worthy of disqualification from discussion. I would be glad if he would come, though I doubt he ever would.
@interesting. Don’t think I’m trying to suggest that Santorum is anywhere close to achieving personal perfection, or that he isn’t sometimes insulting.
@anon yawn
@SANTORUM 2012 HELLO. WHERE CAN I SEND A MESSAGE TO COLUMBIA EDU. ADMINISTRATORS GAY AGENDA SINGLE WORLD CURRENCY. BERNANKE FIAT RENDITION, IRAN. ISRAEL. PLUS GAY AGENDA STUDENTS AND SKRILLEX ANTICHRIST. YES IF THIS TRIMESTER IS THE CORRECT. THANK YOU. SANTORUM 2012. UNITED IN THE CELEBRATION OF FREEDOM SOARING IN THE HEAVENS OF MAN.
@Anonymous loving all the down votes…. speccies so salty!
@this comment case in point
@Anonymous Doesn’t pass the smell test. This letter has correct spelling and proper grammar, and my secret source in CUCR tells me that official emails are only sent out anonymously at night in stilted business letter format.
@I Want to Know What was Bwog’s source for the initial letter and how did you know it was fake?
@I have a feeling That the guy who runs that blog about how much he hates spec is going to step forward and claim responsibility. Think about it, join CUCR for a few weeks, gain trust with E-board, send a few emails floating the idea, write a draft/proposal to the eboard it looks real. This might be the greatest troll in the history of trolls.
@Anonymous Reminds me of this movie, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rann_(film)
@ugh let’s stop paying attention to these silly, attention-seeking cucr
@Wait, I'm confused You misspelled Spectator, it has much more than four letters and starts with an s, like so.
@Anonymous No way CUCR has time for PR stunts like this. They’re too busy petitioning for a White History Month and organizing their next global warming beach party.
@Ooh, spec's downboat squad comes in force Bwog, right now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXaWfeK9ZOU
@Well... This isn’t different from the last statement, how is this going to change Spec’s position. They still have their source. I think we will see this battle rage on. I really hope this isn’t one of those cases where someone has to be thrown under the bus. I hope all the organizations involved just learn a lesson from this and that there are no consequences. Endgame for this doesn’t look good at all.
@Anonymous I fear it will come down to either 1) The source getting revealed in an interview, causing drama for him/her 2)The writer getting disciplined by Spec or 3) CUCR getting fucked over. All of which is a shitty situation for all parties. Even if spec has this amazing source that proves everything, they should just back down and avoid an all out PR war.
@Anonymous there is no “source.” that email is blatantly fake. you don’t send your entire proposal in a shitty 1-page letter like that.
anybody with actual experience with bringing people to campus would know that contracts and correspondence look nothing like that.
rather unfortunate that this happened, but really shows the lack of fact-checking that goes on at these student-run organization.
@eProps to Bwog for not being fucking stupid like spec on this one.
@CUCR e-board are some crazy dudes
@Anonymous the fact that this was even necessary for CUCR to send seems preposterous. Anyone who read the text of that letter knows it was bullshit. one can only hope Spec retracts their statements and gets on with publishing news no one cares about.