Columbia: No Places Left at the Table

By Steven Menashi | Tuesday, December 15, 1998

Columbia's guide for incoming freshmen informs them that 'As a great center of learning, Columbia University prides itself on being a community committed to free and open discourse and to tolerance of different views.' Last month, a conservative conference at Columbia tested the administration's adherence to those principles. A student group, which brought some notable conservative speakers to Columbia for a conference on, of all things, the suppression of conservative speech on College campuses, was met with violent student protest. The Columbia Administration responded by shutting down the conference. The message was clear: dissenting opinions are unwelcome at Columbia.

On November 13, Accuracy in Academia, an advocacy group dedicated to 'the return of the academy to its original mission, the search for the truth,' began its New York conference: 'A Place at the Table: Conservative Ideas in Higher Education.' AIA rented space at Columbia's Faculty House for the event. Speakers included journalist John Leo, author and policy analyst Dinesh D'Souza '83, and conservative Civil Rights activist Ward Connerly.

According to AIA executive director Dan Flynn, the organization hoped to introduce conservative thought to 'a leftist environment that is utterly lacking in intellectual balance.' The conference was meant to address the repression of conservative ideas on campus. The ever-earnest Columbia University administration, in a dramatic display, proved the conference's point exactly.

On November 11th, The Columbia Spectator , the College daily, printed a staff editorial entitled 'Defend Affirmative Action: Protest Connerly's Speech.' The article encouraged students to 'not only protest on Friday, but also to show up Saturday . . . to help AIA reach a better understanding of what 'truth' means.'

AIA's views were similarly pigeonholed in a news article running on the same day. The Director of Columbia's African-American Studies Institute, Manning Marable, characterized the group as 'the organization promoting right-wing views and turning back the intellectual clock to when women were silenced, blacks were denied, and Latinos and Asians were nowhere in the picture' in a prominent quote.

According to the article, Marable went on to describe Connerly as 'a tragic individual, who has chosen to stand on the shoulders of the people who helped him achieve his current social status as a successful businessman.' He labeled Connerly 'an empty suit' standing for Republican interests. An ad-hoc 'Columbia Organization for Affirmative Action' was quickly organized to lead the protests against Connerly's speech on Friday night.

Citing increased security concerns, Columbia demanded an additional $3,000 from AIA — a demand not in the contract between the group and the University — and gave the group seven hours to deliver the cash. It did. Nevertheless, the entrance to Faculty House was blocked by 250 protesters, 100 of whom were from the local International Socialist Organization. Connerly was escorted inside through a rear entrance while 'more than 250 students chanted, held up posters, and jeered at conference participants as they entered Faculty House,' according to the Columbia Spectator.

That evening, Columbia University administrators decided, in the Spectator's words, 'to effectively ban the second day of the conference from campus.'

Citing, once again, security concerns, the University limited access to Faculty House on Saturday to Columbia students only. Conference attendees, who had paid $49.95 each in registration fees, were prohibited from attending the conference. This was a curious solution to Columbia's security problem: the antagonistic crowd of student protesters who sought to shout down the speakers were welcome to attend, while those non-Columbia students who had traveled to New York to listen respectfully were unwelcome.

'Columbia University is firmly committed to affirmative action and has long followed affirmative action programs in the admission of students and the recruitment of faculty and staff,' wrote Chris Colombo, Columbia's Dean of Student Affairs in a letter distributed to students on Saturday.

He assured the students, however, that 'Columbia is also firmly committed to academic freedom and the freedom of speech, even when that speech involves unpopular and controversial views.'

While maintaining that the University supports free speech, Colombo claimed that they did not have 'sufficient time or information to make such preparations' and that 'it will be difficult to ensure the safety of our students unless we take the further precaution of making this a C.U.I.D. only event.'

Columbia, of course, had earlier been able to accommodate a speech by black Muslim activist Khalid Abdul Muhammed — a speaker so controversial that Louis Farrakhan has distanced himself from him. Columbia University, it seems, can only see fit to make adequate arrangements for partisans of the political left. Columbia Security is unable, somehow, to provide proper security for those that threaten the University's liberal orthodoxy.

Not willing to turn away conference registrants, AIA was thus forced Saturday morning to find another, off-campus site for the rest of the events.

They did. Dinesh D'Souza and John Leo, who were scheduled to speak on Saturday, had to do so from an alcove in Morningside Park, where they were largely drowned out and frequently interrupted by protestors, who were asked to remain in a protest zone only 50 feet from the speakers.

When six vans from the New York Police Department arrived, the demonstrators quickly dispersed. But the Columbia protesters claimed victory: 'We got [D'Souza] into Morningside Park, which Columbia doesn't pay attention to anyway,' said Adrienne Brown, CC '00, who was among the protesters. 'This is an alcove where homeless people sleep and piss.' Sensitivity indeed.

'We're not trying to confront him,' Brown explained. 'We just don't want him on our campus.'

'As for the argument that we should confine ourselves to civilized, rational discussion — it sounds awfully noble,' wrote Jesse Sanford in the Spectator. 'Except that it's not possible to discuss rationally matters of life, death, equality, and hatred.'

An editorial in Monday's Spectator further ridiculed AIA's speakers, characterizing their views as utopian and unrealistic. Having that opinion was fine, many students felt, but the role the Spectator assumed as agitator betrayed the paper's journalistic integrity. Indeed, Reginald Jones, one AIA speaker, objected to a photograph that appeared in the Spectator.

The caption claimed that Jones 'argued with protesters outside Faculty House Friday evening' when, in fact, Jones was asking questions about the protesters and their beliefs that were decidedly non-confrontational. He deemed his treatment at Columbia the worst he has been subjected to at a university.

AIA executive director Dan Flynn concluded, 'We don't have a place at the table at Columbia.' AIA is now seeking to hold a similar conference at Columbia in the spring to be paid for by the University. According to several sources on campus, the school is very hostile to this goal, and the matter will have to be settled in court.

Regardless of the outcome, Columbia has revealed that intolerance is acceptable when directed at conservatives. Indeed, Connerly's speech was a far cry from the 'classist, racist, and offensive ideas' Sanford rebuked.

Connerly expressed concern over the fact that black students arrive in kindergarten already behind their classmates. He condemned racial preferences as discrimination, but advocated Affirmative Action in the form of positive outreach. The protesters have reason to be threatened by Connerly's views; they are shared by most Americans.

Though Columbia may disagree with Connerly, however, they do a disservice to liberal education when they trample free expression. Indeed, the educational enterprise rests on an open exchange of ideas. That may seem a cliche, but when voices are silenced by intimidation — let alone institutional sanction of mob violence — liberal education dies.

There is a reason why colleges — even when they censor publications, enforce campus speech codes, or shut down conferences — still insist that they support a free and open exchange of ideas. It is because they know that a college that does not foster free expression is worthless. When students cannot think critically about the ideas presented in the academy, education ceases — all that is left is indoctrination and propagandizing.

It is fine for Chris Colombo to insist that 'Columbia University is firmly committed to affirmative action.' When they insist that everyone else must be likewise committed, when they tolerate intolerance of a dissenting voice, when they silence those voices themselves, they have crossed the line.

Columbia: No Places Left at the Table

Article Tools

Related Articles