STAFF EDITORIAL

e were shocked when President Bollinger sent a letter of apology to Minuteman Project co-founder Jim Gilchrist following the events of last October 4. And our expectations were once again upended by the news that three students have received censure. The administration’s unsupportive actions throughout the five months exhibit an outright apathy not just toward the seven victimized students, but all Columbia undergrads. President Bollinger’s silence on the issue of student safety contradicts the claim in the Facts About Columbia Essential to Students (FACETS) that “At Columbia University, the safety and well-being of our students, faculty, and staff is our top priority.”

reported in our November 2006 issue that Cosette Olivo, CC ’07, and Martìn López, CC ’09—two of the three censured—had been violently assaulted, unprovoked, by a supporter of Gilchrist from outside the University. One AdHoc editor witnessed the kick to the head that López suffered while never even boarding the stage with other protestors. Now, a full five months after the melee, López and Olivo say that no university staff member has yet directly addressed their assault in an official capacity. Additionally, there has not been an investigation into the negligence which allowed non-university affiliates to enter university space against standard event planning procedure. The administration’s indifference to the wellbeing of these students carries heavy implications for the entire student body.

President Bollinger’s quiet apology to Gilchrist seems a calculated attempt to appease critics that are slightly left of Bill O’Reilly. By upbraiding students early on then shamefully keeping those investigated in suspense after initial communication, the university treated its undergraduate body unjustly. The investigative body’s sluggishness in announcing its decisions is unacceptable, contradicting FACET’s assurance that the university provides “a fair and speedy hearing to any person charged with a violation of these Rules [of University Conduct]” (FACETS section 440, p. 71). Furthermore, its unwillingness in providing students with the evidence with which they were charged is also a large problem. Students should have the ability to review evidence before their hearing occurs, and these hearings should occur within 48 hours of being charged, as FACETs also states. The disciplinary process needs more transparency in order to ensure students are treated fairly.

As newly accepted prospectives mull over Columbia among their other options, the University would have done well to assert a strong commitment to students’ safety regardless of whether the disciplinary deans decide to take punitive measures. Sadly, we are left with the acknowledgment that free speech at Columbia comes at a very heavy price. Finally, the unavoidable fact that the three Latino/a students involved received the harshest punishment makes us wonder whether simply decreeing a “Community Principles Initiative” makes for an open academic environment that fosters students of all backgrounds and creeds. We suspect otherwise.