Original Article: http://dartreview.com/archives/2001/11/12/columbia_free_speech_for_all_sometimes.php
Monday, November 12, 2001
On October 26, 2001, the University Senate at Columbia University proposed and adopted a resolution placing their stamp of approval upon an idea that the founding fathers made a part of the United States legal canon more than two centuries ago in the First Amendment.
The Columbia Senate titled its document the 'Resolution Reaffirming Free and Open Debate in the Aftermath of Recent Terrorist Attacks.' The resolution prefaces the proposal by outlining the 'grief in the Columbia community' caused by the terrorist attacks that have 'heightened emotions in the Columbia community and across the nation.' Further, the final prerequisite to the proposal restates what would be understood on most campuses: 'Columbia University is dedicated to the free expression of ideas and open debate.'
The resolution itself 'calls on all members of the Columbia community to preserve an environment conducive to the free exchange of ideas and the civil discussion of diverse opinions.'
While most of the public is probably aware of its right to freedom of speech, Columbia students may have good reason to feel the need to introduce the idea at their school. Columbia's actions have contradicted the First Amendment and other basic rights over the past few years.
Many of the cases of curtailed free speech have occurred at the expense of conservative speakers on campus. The most blatant offense happened in November 1998 when Accuracy in Academia sponsored a weekend of conservative speakers at the Faculty House of Columbia. Letters to the editor in the Columbia Daily Spectator warned of 'racists' coming to campus. Columbia administrators initially tried to block the event by demanding that the group pay a $3,100 fee for heightened security in addition to the fee they had paid in advance for use of the venue. That request came just seven hours before Ward Connerly was scheduled to begin his talk. Someone produced a credit card, and the speech commenced amidst shouting from 250 protestors denouncing Connerly as a 'bigot' and an 'Uncle Tom.' Connerly's speech was drowned out. When the list of eight speakers the next night included conservative authors Dinesh D'Souza and John Leo, Columbia president George Rupp decided that there were too many safety concerns if the school allowed the non-Columbia students, who had been invited, to attend. The panel moved its discussion to the sidewalks just outside Columbia. Demonstrators mocked the speakers by reveling in Columbia's censorship. They chanted 'Ha, ha, you're outside,' and held signs reading,
'Access denied—we win.'
During this fiasco, The Columbia Senate was silent. Nor was any resolution passed last year in answer to the administration's claim that Professor George Fletcher's exam might be 'unlawful' because of a question from actual case law, in which a female thanked a male assailant for inducing an abortion that a medical facility would not permit. And no shouts of 'Innocent until proven guilty!' or 'Right to due process!' went up from the Columbia Senate when the school released its heinous Sexual Misconduct policy earlier this year (see TDR 10/29/01).
The current resolution only targets a small portion of the Columbia population. The rationale for the resolution states, 'During recent weeks, some student members of the Columbia community have felt pressure to curtail their opinions of the national response to the Sept. 11 attacks.' No examples of any such actions are given. As quoted in the Columbia Spectator, one of the chief authors of the bill, Senator Michael Castleman stated that the resolution would function as a preventive measure.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education sees this new resolution as reactionary and noted Columbia's past offenses. 'After decades of watching Columbia trash and neglect free speech, legal equality, and all notions of individual rights and responsibilities, the Senate suddenly asserts itself, alarmed only about alleged patriotic threats to freedom of expression,' said FIRE.