Thread: My Response From Columbia U

Dear Mr UB


Thank you for your letter. I think you'll be interested in our coverage of the event, and of free speech more generally, in our winter issue.


For now, here is Lee Bollinger's statement on the matter.


Michael B. Shavelson

Dear fellow members of the Columbia community,


Columbia University has always been, and will always be, a place
where students and faculty engage directly with important public
issues. We are justifiably proud of the traditions here of
intellectual inquiry and vigorous debate. The disruption on
Wednesday night that resulted in the termination of an event
organized by the Columbia College Republicans in Lerner Hall
represents, in my judgment, one of the most serious breaches of
academic faith that can occur in a university such as ours.


Of course, the University is thoroughly investigating the incident,
and it is critically important not to prejudge the outcome of that
inquiry with respect to individuals. But, as we made clear in our
University statements on both Wednesday night and Thursday, we must
speak out to deplore a disruption that threatens the central
principle to which we are institutionally dedicated, namely to
respect the rights of others to express their views.


This is not complicated: Students and faculty have rights to invite
speakers to the campus. Others have rights to hear them. Those who
wish to protest have rights to do so. No one, however, shall have
the right or the power to use the cover of protest to silence
speakers. This is a sacrosanct and inviolable principle.


It is unacceptable to seek to deprive another person of his or her
right of expression through actions such as taking a stage and
interrupting a speech. We rightly have a visceral rejection of
this behavior, because we all sense how easy it is to slide from
our collective commitment to the hard work of intellectual
confrontation to the easy path of physical brutishness. When the
latter happens, we know instinctively we are all threatened.


We have extensive University policies governing the actions of
members of this community with respect to free speech and the
conduct of campus events. Administrators began identifying those
involved in the incident as it transpired and continue to
investigate specific violations of University policies to ensure
full accountability by those found to be responsible.


University personnel are also evaluating event management practices
that are specifically intended to help event organizers,
participants, and protestors maintain a safe environment in which
to engage in meaningful and sometimes contentious debate across the
spectrum of academic and political issues. These are some of the
many steps we intend to take in the weeks ahead to address this
matter in our community.


Let me reaffirm: In a society committed to free speech, there will
inevitably be times when speakers use words that anger, provoke,
and even cause pain. Then, more than ever, we are called on to
maintain our courage to confront bad words with better words. That
is the hallmark of a university and of our democratic society. It
is also one of our central safeguards against the impulses of
intolerance that always threaten to engulf our commitment to proper
respect for every person.


Sincerely,


Lee C. Bollinger






On Oct 5, 2006, at 12:48 PM, UB:



Last night the Columbia University College Republicans hosted what was to be a speech by Jim Gilchrist, the founder of the Minuteman Project. Within moments of Gilchrist taking the podium, however, the event was disrupted by left-wing students mounting a coordinated attack on the stage. Columbia Public Safety stood by and watched. In a YouTube video, CTV's Natalie Yammine caught the riot on tape.

The Rules of University Conduct (Chapter XLI of the Statutes of the University) provide special disciplinary rules applicable to demonstrations, rallies, picketing, and the circulation of petitions. These rules are designed to protect the rights of free expression through peaceful demonstration while at the same time ensuring the proper functioning of the University and the protection of the rights of those who may be affected by such demonstrations.

The Rules of University Conduct are University wide and supersede all other rules of any school or division. Minor violations of the Rules of Conduct are referred to the normal disciplinary procedures of each school or division ("Dean's discipline"). A student who is charged with a serious violation of the Rules has the option of choosing Dean's discipline or a more formal hearing procedure provided in the Rules.

There appears to be no shortage of evidence on which to predicate disciplinary proceedings against any number of students caught on tape last night. Columbia is now presented with the opportunity of demonstrating who is in charge of the zoo. As they used to say, the whole world is watching.

UB

Last I heard, they (the college) had done absolutely nothing. Anyone heard anything?

You won't be hearing anything either, because Columbia made its sentiments clear with this little excerpt:

In a society committed to free speech, there will
inevitably be times when speakers use words that anger, provoke,
and even cause pain. Then, more than ever, we are called on to
maintain our courage to confront bad words with better words. That
is the hallmark of a university and of our democratic society. It
is also one of our central safeguards against the impulses of
intolerance that always threaten to engulf our commitment to proper
respect for every person.

Sounds like the Minutemen were already judged and found found guilty of using "words that anger, provoke, and even cause pain." That means that the most they are likely to hold the guilty students accountable for is making the institution look bad.