CHRISTOPHER SHAY

                Staff Editorial

lthough the public relations storm is gradually subsiding one month after the events of Oct. 4, Columbia has yet to resolve the issues surrounding the Minuteman protest. Among the most pressing is the fate of the protesters who occupied the stage. Though the student disciplinary process is confidential, we already know that several of the protesters have been warned that they may be charged with violation of the University's rules governing student protests. Non-violent protest sometimes works by breaking rules, and Columbia is bound to enforce its own. Nevertheless, the University must take care to do so justly.

The rules governing student protests can be found in Facts About Columbia Essential to Students (FACETS), the handbook issued to every student of the University. Among the violations listed are engaging in physical violence, disrupting an event to the point that it cannot continue, and encroaching on reserved space. Critics have accused the protestors of all these things. FACETS also distinguishes between “simple” and “serious” violations; generally, simple violations refer to temporary disruption, while serious violations refer to an extended disruption.

First, the University must not rush to blame the protesters for what happened when it is clear that Minuteman founder Jim Gilchrist's own supporters were involved. In fact, FACETS says, “this is the intention of the Rules of University Conduct: to protect the concurrent rights of both the University community as a whole and demonstrators.” So far there is indisputable evidence of aggressive physical violence on the part of the “guests,” and none on the protesters'. And while the event was terminated, it is doubtful that this shutdown would have occurred had the guests of the College Republicans and Minuteman Project not physically attacked the protesters. Had Columbia Public Safety escorted the protesters offstage before violence erupted, the event would have conceivably resumed. While the protesters clearly committed some “simple” violations, the facts available now do not show that they committed “serious” ones.

Even if the University finds that they did commit “serious” violations, it will still have discretion over their punishment, which could be as severe as suspension or dismissal. We believe that such severe punishments would be unjust. The administration is obligated to consider mitigating circumstances. This is not a question of the “free speech” of ideas; the College Republicans brought not merely a speaker with anti-immigration views, but the leader of a vigilante group that operates through physical intimidation. The College Republicans' lack of initiative in furthering a debate on immigration merely suggests that hosting Gilchrist was more disingenuous than it was an honest desire for productive dialogue.

Finally, the administration has yet to send a clear message about the nature of productive dialogue on campus. As valuable as free speech may be in the abstract, it is a purely negative freedom, which can be used well or badly. There is room for controversial ideas in campus forums, but inviting the Minuteman leader is a mere provocation, and an arrogant gesture against reasoned debate. The issue of free speech has all but usurped campus conversation: despite students' initial reaction to the Minuteman invitation and all that has happened since October. We do not suggest that the administration restrict whom student groups invite, but it should affirm in no uncertain terms that it expects its students to exercise judgment as to who will genuinely contribute to the exchange of ideas. The University can provide a space for free speech, but it need not, and should not, stand neutrally beside important debates.