CU Home
EPIC 3 Emeritus Professors in Columbia
"Fellows are invited to submit essays of interest to the EPIC community."
Commentary

Commentary > Commentary Archive

What Vietnam Portends for Iraq

Remarks at the Columbia College Class of 1951 Fifty-Fifth-Anniversary Reunion
Seymour Topping, San Paolo Professor Emeritus of International Journalism
June 9, 2006, 6:00 p.m.
The Terrace Restaurant
Read the speech (PDF)

Freedom of Speech on the Columbia Campus

We are publishing comments on issues pertaining to freedom of speech on the Columbia campus which have arisen in recent weeks. EPIC members are invited to add their voices to the debate in the form of commentaries and letters sent to EPIC.

President Bollinger's Statement on Freedom of Speech

On October 6, 2006, President Bollinger made this comment on the protest that erupted at a campus speech by Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, a group that has mounted patrols along the Mexican border to block illegal immigration:

Dear fellow members of the Columbia community,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sincerely,
Lee C. Bollinger

Update on Response to Disruption of College Republicans Event

On October 12, 2006, President Bollinger wrote this e-mail to update members of the Columbia community on the University's response to the protest:

Dear fellow members of the Columbia community,

I am writing to follow up on actions the University is taking in response to the disruption that occurred at the October 4 event in Lerner Hall. We are moving ahead in three broad areas: discussions throughout the community on the rights and responsibilities associated with freedom of speech on the campus, initiation of University disciplinary proceedings, and responses to any misconduct by individuals who are not affiliated with Columbia. Additionally, the University's review of student-sponsored event management and procedures continues.

Tuesday, I had the first of what will be a series of intensive conversations with student government and student organization leaders. As always happens, I left the discussion deeply impressed with the thoughtfulness of our students and their commitment to share responsibility for developing our basic principles as a University and for seeing that they are adhered to. It is not possible here to recount all of the good suggestions that emerged from the conversation, but I do want to say that I am heartened by the expressed willingness to work through potential problems before they become real problems. I should also say there are many similar discussions taking place across the campus with administrators and students on these issues.

The investigation into the disruption continues. This week, Senior Vice Provost Stephen Rittenberg, who serves as rules administrator, will send letters to students who have been identified to date as having participated in acts that might have violated the Rules of University Conduct. In the letters, Dr. Rittenberg will inform students that they may face charges of rules violations and ask them to meet with him. I have noted before the need not to prejudge the actions of any individuals; the University Rules have established standards and procedures that provide for a thorough review and hearing to ensure that all members of the community are treated fairly. This, like free speech, is a core value of the University.

We are also investigating the actions of particular individuals who are not members of the Columbia community and will inform those whom we find to have committed violent or disruptive acts last Wednesday that they will not be allowed on the campus again.

I want to thank the many people in the University who have devoted time and energy to repairing the injury our community has sustained and to strengthening our shared academic values.

Sincerely,
Lee C. Bollinger

New York Times Article on Lee C. Bollinger and Free Speech

On October 22, 2006, the New York Times published an article entitled "A First Amendment Scholar, Dogged by Free-Speech Fights," which EPIC President Seymour Topping e-mailed to EPIC fellows. Read the article in the New York Times (subscription required).

Michael I. Sovern's Letter to the New York Times

On October 23, 2006, former Columbia University president Michael I. Sovern wrote a letter to the editor of the New York Times to clarify his opinion on President Bollinger's leadership on free-speech issues, which he felt was misrepresented in the October 22 article. Read his letter in the New York Times.

Daniel N. Beshers's Comment on the New York Times Article

On October 23, 2006, Professor Emeritus of Metallurgy Daniel N. Beshers took issue with the New York Times article in the following commentary:

To the EPIC Web site:

The article in the Times, by Karen Arenson and Tamar Lewin, is based on the unstated assumption that lack of controversy, and disturbance, is evidence of free speech, and conversely. The assumption is wrong, as shown by the existence of universities governed from the top, where generally quiet prevails because dissidents are ousted as soon as they are recognized and before they make headway.

They also, implicitly, call for swift and decisive measures, discounting any need for deliberative justice or consideration of other aspects, such as the University's limited ability to keep the peace. For example, the consequences of any serious breach of decorum during a visit from the President of Iran would be enormous, and not just for Columbia, but for the United States and perhaps the world.

Daniel N. Beshers

President Bollinger's Update on Campus Speech Issues

On December 22, 2006, President Bollinger e-mailed members of the Columbia community an update on the University's response to the October 4 protest. Read the e-mail on the Office of the President's Web site.

Faculty House B02
400 West 117th Street, MC 2303
Columbia University, New York, NY 10027
Tel: (212) 854-8083
Fax: (212) 854-8248

© 2005 Columbia University
Web site developed by Columbia University Digital Knowledge Ventures