Hello,
I wanted to express my concern over the comments recently made by Professor De Genova at the Low Library.
I believe that part of the goodness of the United States is that by virtue of the form of government we head dear, citizens are allowed to express themselves, if they choose, in a controversial manner, and concerning controversial topics. Is important for students develop critical thinking skills and to make important decisions, decisions that will help guide them in the rest of life's ventures.
However, Professor De Genova calling for "a million Mogadishus" serves an extremely limited purpose. Making this and other statements does not take a modicum of rational thought or reasonable contemplation. Indeed, it incites and demonstrates to people that whatever educational preparation Professor De Genova has undertaken, has apparently been overruled by such breathtaking emotionalism, that one can reasonably question if Professor De Genova use facts, logic and reasoning to put forth and define a position. I would seriously question his ability to do so based on his recent comments.
I understand Columbia must ensure that the University is one in which the openness and free expression of ideas flourish with the primary objective to educate. However, it would appear to this outsider, that Professor De Genova has put his opinion above and beyond his primary charge - to educate. I believe the reasonable man could conclude that Professor De Genova is not primarily committed to educating students, but using the University as the means to advance his personal political agenda, with educating students of lessor import.
I would also be concerned that Columbia may indeed have its' reputation harmed by this incident. I believe that by the University not speaking out concerning such inflammatory statements, the commitment of the University, first and foremost to a quality education, can certainly be called into question. His comments certainly bring discredit to your institution.
Regards,
/s/
Hope I didn't screw you up.