Columbia Student Behavior --- Disgraceful

Colleges and Universities A-Z Columbia University
21

<p>
[quote]
I completely blame the College Republicans for this one. If they properly screened at the door, they could have easily prevented this from taking place…..This was a College Republicans event with space granted by university event management. Columbia University is absolutely not to blame…..For an event like this, CUCR should have screened students against available active group rolls, or simply chosen an audience mindful to the speaker

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Window-shopping, what a bunch of BS. The College Republicans had every right to bring in their guest speaker. It amazes me how you blame the student organization and not the violent protesters. Are people not responsible for their own behavior? It shouldn’t be a lot to ask for students to behave respectfully and wait for the Q&A session to address their concerns. Also – guest speakers shouldn’t be screened for a “like-minded” audience. Part of the beauty of college is being exposed to ideas that differ from your own; it challenges them, and makes them stronger. As JS Mill said, “If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.” The incident has nationally tarnished Columbia’s reputation, and the administration needs to have sufficient security to allow all viewpoints to be heard in a safe and productive environment.</p>

22

<p>We heard you the first time, NY Mets.</p>

<p>No one's blaming CUCR for the results they got - people have to take responsibility for their own actions. WindowShopping is saying that CUCR could have taken actions that would have prevented this, had they been proactive / aware of the history of this sort of thing.</p>

<p>And he's exactly right - it's most likely a few nutball socialists from brooklyn getting involved with the ISO on campus and bum-rushing an otherwise orderly event, and somehow everyone interprets this as "EVERYONE AT COLUMBIA IS NUCKING FUTS! RUN FOR THE HILLS!" It sounds to me like not only has the media lost the plot, but so have you.</p>

23

<p>
[quote]
Window-shopping, what a bunch of BS.

[/quote]

Great. Should I keep reading fully knowing where this is headed?</p>

<p>
[quote]
The College Republicans had every right to bring in their guest speaker.

[/quote]

That they did.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It amazes me how you blame the student organization and not the violent protesters.

[/quote]

Nobody has proven that the protesters were in any way violet. Nevertheless, continue to be amazed.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Are people not responsible for their own behavior?

[/quote]

Sure they are.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It shouldn’t be a lot to ask for students to behave respectfully and wait for the Q&A session to address their concerns.

[/quote]

I agree, but you see, the last time Kulawik hosted a speaker with a Q&A, the questions were submitted in advance and subject to review by Kulawik himself. Very few organizations outside of CUCR even got to ask questions. Dissenters were scolded by Kulawik. Feel free to cue up the archive on the KCR site. If there were ground rules at the beginning, knowing that it would be a contentious evening, this could have been averted. The speaker did not have to stop at any point. In fact, after the hall was cleared of the interruption, he could have continued before a respectful audience. CUCR seemed to be acting on a separate wavelength than CU Security (who, based on their reactions, was left ill-advised - by CUCR - as how to handle the matter). The dissenting voice was protected. Free speech was preserved. PrezBo sleeped soundly.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Also – guest speakers shouldn’t be screened for a “like-minded” audience.

[/quote]

Sorry, but like I said earlier on, that's how it's worked at these kinds of Republican events for the past five years.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Part of the beauty of college is being exposed to ideas that differ from your own; it challenges them, and makes them stronger.

[/quote]

I totally agree. I bet you're going to quote Mill next.</p>

<p>
[quote]
As JS Mill said, “If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”

[/quote]

So you've taken or are taking CC right now?</p>

<p>
[quote]
The incident has nationally tarnished Columbia’s reputation, and the administration needs to have sufficient security to allow all viewpoints to be heard in a safe and productive environment.

[/quote]

Disagree. Those on the right were left unchanged as were those on the left. In a week (or even a day), this is old news.</p>

<p>LET'S GO METS!</p>

<p>edit: to the admin, can i get a tag to replace "junior member" with "is nucking futs" please? thank you.</p>

24

<p>The reprehensible behavior seems to have been exhibited by more than "a few" people in the audience, from the film shown on national TV.</p>

25

<p>I guess the next question is that if the general population at Columbia is open-minded and willing to listen to opposing points of view, why is it that Republican events need special security? (I'm not being sarcastic here, I'd really like to know.)</p>

26

<p>
[quote]
I guess the next question is that if the general population at Columbia is open-minded and willing to listen to opposing points of view, why is it that Republican events need special security? (I'm not being sarcastic here, I'd really like to know.)

[/quote]

For the same reason George W. Bush's campaign events required screening and special security while John Kerry's campaign events did not, and not just because Bush was the incumbent. If an arguably radical fringe speaker is coming to campus as part of a college tour, stating that he welcomes academic controversey as part of his mission, an event like that does require additional security if it is to actually happen and the speaker is to be protected. If someone on here is going to quote Mill, they should also include the struggle for truth in the marketplace of ideas. The other night, the Minutemen lost. Intellectually, nobody won.</p>

<p>Without polling, I'd say that 99% of Columbia <em>is</em> open-minded (minus maybe the Ruggles vandals) and willing to listen to opposing points of views. John McCain spoke at last year's CC Class Day, and while many disagreed with him (and turned their backs), he was allowed to speak at what was a university event.</p>

27

<p>
[quote]
Window Shopper: I completely blame the College Republicans for this one.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
"The College Republicans had every right to bring in their guest speaker." Window Speaker: That they did.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Lets be clear, they had every right to bring their speaker but you still blame them for doing it. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I agree, but you see, the last time Kulawik hosted a speaker with a Q&A, the questions were submitted in advance and subject to review by Kulawik himself. Very few organizations outside of CUCR even got to ask questions.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, it looks like Columbia students found an alternative.....</p>

<p>
[quote]
This isn't college behavior - it's kindergarten behavior.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I have a brother in kindergarten and he respects others when they are talking. Columbia forums can't say the same.</p>

28

<p>
[quote]
The reprehensible behavior seems to have been exhibited by more than "a few" people in the audience, from the film shown on national TV.

[/quote]

I just watched the CTV footage again. It looks like 10-15 students rushed the stage to hold a banner. Many in the crowd cheered, but I wouldn't call that reprehensible behavior (sort of like, you know, when you go to a baseball game and there's a brawl, everyone gets up and starts cheering because, well, there's a ****ing brawl going on in front of them). It's college. If I were there, I'd be cheering too just out of sheer excitement. I'm sure you baby boomers out there did the same 35 years ago, even though most are probably unwilling to admit it.</p>

29

<p>
[quote]
sort of like, you know, when you go to a baseball game and there's a brawl, everyone gets up and starts cheering

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Don't you think there is a problem when you are comparing Columbia discussion forums to wrestling brawls?</p>

30

<p>
[quote]
I guess the next question is that if the general population at Columbia is open-minded and willing to listen to opposing points of view, why is it that Republican events need special security? (I'm not being sarcastic here, I'd really like to know.)

[/quote]

Vango, I would put it like this: 99% of the campus is as open-minded and respectful as you could reasonably request. The 1% that isn't, however, and feels it has both a right and a duty to not just protest but disrespect and inconvenience those with a viewpoint contrary to theirs, happens to get their dander up about highly conservative / socially-darwinistic viewpoints.</p>

<p>Basically, pick an issue, and ask yourself "would a member of the International Socialist Organization get ****ed off about this?" If the answer is yes, you have an event decorum risk; otherwise, you're almost certainly fine.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I have a brother in kindergarten and he respects others when they are talking. Columbia forums can't say the same.

[/quote]

Funny, all the kindergardeners I have known don't stereotype others' viewpoints, ignore contrary evidence, and set up strawmen about others' positions. I guess it takes a more sophisticated viewpoint to do so.</p>

31

<p>
[quote]
Don't you think there is a problem when you are comparing Columbia discussion forums to wrestling brawls?

[/quote]

Baseball isn't wrestling, as far as I know. But either way, you totally missed the point, and I'm done responding to you.</p>

32

<p>This discussion is too tame. I'm going over to the parallel thread on this event in the Parents Cafe, where the broad-brush characterizations of "those darn liberals" are running hot and heavy. There ain't nothin I like more than getting stereotyped.</p>

33

<h2>W-S, you missed the point. Ivy League discussion forums should have no similarities to yelling at a baseball game.</h2>

<p>Denzera, 99% of Columbia students think they are open-minded. There were various Facebook Groups started by Columbia students that strongly supported the actions of those involved. As one Columbia student stated, "Yes, we were stupid, but we got our message across that we weren't going to accept this on campus." This culture should not be tolerated at any Ivy League university.</p>

34

<p>The recent incident is redolant of the culture of intolerance that dominated the scene at Columbia 20 years ago - and 40 years ago. A "tradition", you might say!</p>

35

<p>
[quote]
The recent incident is redolant of the culture of intolerance that dominated the scene at Columbia 20 years ago - and 40 years ago. A "tradition", you might say!

[/quote]

That wasn't meant to be taken seriously, right?</p>

36

<p>You want tradition? This is tradition:</p>

<p>40 years ago, 1966: 2-7 (2-5, Ivy)
20 years ago, 1986: 0-10 (0-7, Ivy)
Last year, 2005: 2-8 (0-7, Ivy)</p>

<p>You see, we have traditions. Sometimes you just need to look below the surface.</p>

37

<p>I thought this editorial from today's Spec was quite good. I'm guessing a lot of Columbia students agree with this:</p>

<p>
[quote]
STAFF EDITORIAL: When Protest Fails</p>

<p>Columbia has a long history of passionate, sometimes violent, political activism, and some protests have met with more success than others. The chaos at Wednesday night's Minutemen speech fell in line with that legacy, but not in a good way. The actions of the student protestors were absolutely disgraceful and undermined legitimate political concerns. There is an immeasurable difference between a peaceful, respectful protest and a rowdy, violent one. This type of mob-rule activism damages Columbia's reputation and stifles the potential for free speech on campus.
The protesters did, of course, have cause for concern. The Minutemen have at best a highly controversial opinion regarding immigration. The speakers themselves practically encouraged the unruly behavior, directly insulting the crowd numerous times. Jim Gilchrist, the featured speaker, walked up to the podium smiling and berating the protesters. Aside from some token requests for respect, also couched in antagonistic words toward the audience, the College Republicans and their guests did little if anything to promote a truly productive discussion environment.
Nonetheless, the actions of the protesters were still entirely unacceptable. From the introduction of the first speaker, the crowd began shouting. The Minutemen engaged in race-baiting, with Stewart and Gilchrist patronizingly exploiting Stewart's ethnicity to combat claims of racism in their organization. But the crowd responded with racist remarks of their own, calling Stewart a "sellout" and yelling that the founding fathers of America were "not your fathers." The College Republicans did set up the event to include a question and answer session, and protesters could have peacefully used that time to their advantage. The speeches of the Minutemen condemn them far more than any juvenile violence ever could, and thoughtful questions would have been much more productive than angry banners. This sort of mindless action only fuels the self-righteousness of the Minutemen and their supporters.
Because this misguided activism exhibited the exact sort of thoughtless reaction that students criticize in the Minutemen, valid complaints against them have now been overshadowed by sensationalist violence. Furthermore, this seriously affects the University's ability to attract controversial speakers, which stifles true debate on campus. Free speech requires an environment of respect, and even a disrespectful speaker does not exempt students from that responsibility. At the end of the event, the protesters didn't even give Gilchrist a chance to say anything. Their actions resound as a cry not against his ideals but against hearing them in the first place.
Students do not have to respect the individuals speaking, but they ought to at least show deference to their right to an opinion and a civilized debate. At one point, a member of the audience yelled, "Respect has to be mutual!" She was right. But it has to start somewhere.

[/quote]
</p>

38

<p>university e-mail sent moments ago from the desk of alexander mickel, err, lee c. bollinger:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Dear fellow members of the Columbia community,</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Sincerely,</p>

<p>Lee C. Bollinger

[/quote]
</p>

39

<p>I wonder if a suspension or two will be considered if the perps can be identified. </p>

<p>After all, Harvard suspended two football players who got into a shoving match with a bus driver, and Yale is at least <em>considering</em> discipline for two football players who got into a fight with some hockey players on a New Haven street. One would think roughing up a speaker in a university building might be considered an equally serious offense.</p>

40

<p>Obviously, from Bollinger's message, Columbing is considering discipline as well.
Speaking about football players, I read somewhere that the football team was supposed to provide security for the event. Maybe if Columbia had a better, more agressive, football team, they might have done a better job. On the other hand, they might also get into more drunken brawls like their Ivy brethren.</p>