Right Wing Nation

You will recall that I called bullsh*t on this study, and I still do. The purpose of the study was the following:

The aim was to determine how well the colleges are teaching their students the basics of government, politics and history — the bedrocks of good citizenship.

The study was flawed from the beginning, since no university of which I am aware requires courses an any of these topics for graduation. However, if we want to see how citizenship fares at universities, why not look at the behavior of students and faculty, and the university’s reaction to that behavior?

We have the recent shameful events at Columbia, a story that has been ubiquitous all over the dextrosphere (hat tip to Misha for the link):

October 6, 2006
Columbia Investigating Protests That Stopped Speaker
By MARIA NEWMAN

Columbia University officials said today they were investigating what happened Wednesday night when protesters stormed a stage where the founder of a conservative anti-immigration group was trying to deliver an address, an incident that ended in chairs being overturned, and charges that students violated the speaker’s freedom of speech.

The incident, at Columbia’s Roone Arledge Auditorium, reflects the strong feelings surround the immigration debate in the United States. It erupted just minutes into a speech by Jim Gilchrist, the founder of the Minuteman Project, a self-appointed band of civilian border patrols that have focused mostly on preventing illegal immigration from Mexico.

Mr. Gilchrist was invited to speak on campus by the Columbia University College Republicans.

Just as Mr. Gilchrist was talking about “2,000 Mexicans on the border,” several people holding aloft a banner that read “No One Is Illegal” in several languages, hopped on the stage. Almost instantly, they were joined by a couple of dozen others protesting the speech, according to videotape of the events taken by news agencies and others. From then on, the forum turned into a raucous gathering of young people shouting slogans against Mr. Gilchrist. The audience was on its feet, and eventually college security guards had to close down the event, ushering out about 350 people.

Organizers told several news agencies that the protesters who rushed the stage had knocked Mr. Gilchrist backward, causing his glasses to break.

Student protesters told Columbia’s student newspaper, The Spectator, that the demonstration was meant to be peaceful. But they said that changed when the protesters were joined on stage by Republicans organizers of the event and other Gilchrist supporters. “The confrontation turned violent,” the newspaper said, describing the accounts of protesters. “One student was kicked in the head and bleeding.”

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg criticized the university today for not keeping better control over a public event.

In his radio address, he said the protesters were infringing on Mr. Gilchrist’s right to speak.

“If you get invited, whoever invites you should have the courtesy to let you speak and provide the protection so you can do it, and particularly on university campuses,” Mr. Bloomberg said in response to a question on his weekly radio show.

Today, university officials said they would investigate. But they restated the university’s commitment to provide a forum for free speech.

“The freedom to speak, to pursue ideas, and to hear and evaluate viewpoints totally objectionable to one’s own is an essential value of this university, and, indeed, our society,” the university said in a statement. “We defend the right to peaceful protest and expression of opposing views. But it is never acceptable for anyone to physically take to a stage and interrupt a speaker.”

The Spectator said the protests were organized by the International Socialist Organization, the Chicano Caucus and other groups.

“We don’t condone the actions of members on either side,” Adhemir Romero, president of the Chicano Caucus, told The Spectator. “Either people on stage who were holding up signs, or people who felt that their speaker was being threatened by people holding signs.”

But others said they were moved to jump on stage because they disagreed so vehemently with Mr. Gilchrist.

“We were aware that there was going to be a sign and we were going to occupy the stage,” The Spectator quoted one protester who was on the stage as saying. “I don’t feel like we need to apologize or anything. It was fundamentally a part of free speech. … The Minutemen are not a legitimate part of the debate on immigration.”

On its Web site, the Minuteman Project said violent protesters had “stormed the stage and lunged” toward Mr. Gilchrist. “I am dismayed that members of the Columbia University community would resort to violence in an attempt to censor free speech,” Mr. Gilchrist said on the Web site. “This violent outburst is yet another indication that those who support illegal immigration are happy to use communist tactics in their intolerant determination to prevent the Minutemen from exercising their First Amendment rights.”

It should surprise nobody that these idiots felt entitled to shut up Gilchrist; it’s hardly a secret that “progressives” have no respect for the Constitution or the right of conservatives to speak. It also should surprise nobody that Columbia is reacting as if they disapprove, when they and their left-wing policies are solely to blame for creating this situation. Nor should anyone be surprised that Columbia is trying to white-wash this by calling it a violation of free speech, when it was a physical asssault.

And God forbid that I echo Bloomberg, but only he is asking the most important question here.

Where was the security? How did this happen? When Ann Coulter came to Indiana University to speak, the university provided security. Hecklers were immediately ejected, and had anyone tried to assault her on stage, they would have been arrested on the spot. So Columbia, where were your campus police? This physical asssault happened on your watch; you are responsible for this. Why did you allow it to happen — and why are you not taking responsibility for this?

One commenter at Ann Althouse says:

I have read that Columbia security personnel were present and did nothing.

It appears that this is true, according to the New York Sun article:

The video of the event shows campus police officers — paid for by the Columbia College Republicans — standing by just feet away as students overturned tables and chairs onstage and proceeded to attack Mr. Gilchrist and his fellow Minuteman, Marvin Stewart.

The failure of Columbia’s administration to make even the meekest effort to secure what it knew would be a heated environment in order to allow open debate is shocking. Its protestations after the violence were unconvincing. “We defend the right to peaceful protest and expression of opposing views,” a spokesman for Columbia, Robert Hornsby, told us. “But it is never acceptable for anyone to physically take to a stage and interrupt a speaker.” So why did campus police officers stand idly by as the physical intimidation of a speaker ensued?

That is the question, isn’t it? Oh, but it gets worse:

After letting the perpetrators escape, university administrators had the gall to berate the president of Columbia’s College Republicans, Christopher Kulawik, for allowing his guests to infuriate the crowd, according to Mr. Kulawik. In other words, despite formally nodding to the value of free speech, Columbia is effectively blaming the victim for inciting the chaos.

Of course. Columbia can do nothing else. To hold the criminals responsible would be to undercut the PC, leftist-only, “diversity” policies upon which Columbia operates.

It isn’t at all surprising that the Columbia paper editorial also “decries the assault,” while blaming those awful College Republicans and the speaker for what happened:

The protesters did, of course, have cause for concern. The Minutemen have at best a highly controversial opinion regarding immigration. The speakers themselves practically encouraged the unruly behavior, directly insulting the crowd numerous times. Jim Gilchrist, the featured speaker, walked up to the podium smiling and berating the protesters. Aside from some token requests for respect, also couched in antagonistic words toward the audience, the College Republicans and their guests did little if anything to promote a truly productive discussion environment.

Cause for concern? Really? And Gilchrist “encouraged” this behavior how? By not following leftist groupthink. And one wonders what, in these sick leftists’ minds who wrote this execrable excuse for an editorial, the College Republicans were supposed to have done to “promote a truly productive discussion environment,” given that neither the university nor these “editors” have any use at all for anything but leftist groupthink.

Yes, these little spoiled brats that assaulted Mr. Gilchrist should be held accountable. But the universities, and their policies that encourage this should be held responsible as well.

Enough is enough.