CHRISTOPHER SHAY

                Diane Chang & Grace Zhou

DRAWING: ANNA SO STILLS: FOX NEWS

he events of October 4 should not have been a complete surprise. As with every other student protest in Columbia's history, this outburst seemed to come from nowhere. The public spectacle becomes the focus, and the factors that led to the protest a history of dismissal and the latent frustrations of students of color are conveniently ignored. Hardly any commentator has understood what was at stake when Jim Gilchrist, co-founder of the Minuteman Project, came to speak on campus.

According to Lauren Steinberg GS '09, executive director of the Columbia University College Republicans, “We select speakers from across the Republican spectrum to elucidate views that might not otherwise be heard on campus.” What the College Republicans did not address was that the Minuteman Project is infamous not merely for its views, but for its violent vigilantism and ties to white supremacists. President Bush himself has publicly dismissed them as “vigilantes.”

Chris Kulawik CC '08, president of the College Republicans, maintained that he invited Gilchrist and Dr. Jerome Corsi, his co-author of the book, Minutemen: The Battle to Secure America's Borders, “for their firsthand experiences and what they see happening on the border because they're there day by day, week by week. I mean, I know I've never been to the border. This first-hand account is what is lacking on campus.”

In April of 2005, the Associated Press reported that Minuteman Project volunteers physically detained a 26-year-old Mexican man on the Arizona-Mexico border and took degrading photos of him. The American Civil Liberties Union reported last October that New Mexico Border Patrol agents arrested a Minuteman volunteer from Colorado for illegally detaining two migrants. Additionally, the Southern Poverty Law Center has documented members of the Phoenix branch of the National Alliance—the largest neo-Nazi organization in the country—at Minuteman Project events, and National Alliance members have been photographed while on patrol with the Minutemen.

“Among Hispanics, they're known,” said Cosette Olivo, CC '07. “To our families, [the immigration issue] is personal. It's not just any issue, it's a personal issue.” As students of color and their allies began to organize a protest for Gilchrist's visit, the College Republicans invited the Chicano Caucus to co-sponsor the event just a few days before its scheduled date, leaving the Caucus insufficient time to find another speaker.

DRAWING: ANNA SO PHOTOGRAPH: CHRISTOPHER SHAY

Students who were not as personally invested in the immigration debate were more willing to give the guest speakers the benefit of the doubt. “I expected it to be a healthy debate,” said Nicole Beach, CC '10, who attended independently. “I kind of expected to hear some ridiculous statements, but I didn't think it would be so extreme.”

Tension built during Minuteman Marvin Stewart's introductory speech. “I was angry that he kept using Christian talk to back up what he said,” Beach said. “It made me worried about what I'd hear from Gilchrist himself & I was going to take [the scheduled Q&A time] to ask him questions, to show that he had no substantial evidence in what he said.”

Helam Gebremariam, CC '07, who went to the event wearing a white shirt to express solidarity with the protesters outside Lerner Hall, said that she did not understand what Stewart's views were after listening to him speak: “He spoke a lot about Hamilton and Madison and the Constitution; it was very much like speeding through CC, but there was no cohesion to his lecture. He didn't even delve into why he's a Minuteman and what they do on the border.”

Jeers from audience members, who chanted “wrap it up” as Stewart hit the 45-minute mark and stood up with their backs to the stage, strengthened Stewart's resolve to berate the crowd. He spoke louder and yelled, “You don't know anything about the Constitution, about government.”

“I feel like the attitude at the end of Stewart's speech was so tense,” Beach said. “Insults were thrown back and forth between the speaker and the audience, and Gilchrist got caught up in that, too. He felt the need to come up on stage in that attitude.”

After College Republicans president Chris Kulawik chastised the crowd from the podium, Gilchrist stepped onstage and hugged Stewart. Turning to the audience, he said, “Who're you calling racist now?”

Gebremariam noted that both speakers were more concerned with inflaming an already belligerent crowd. She said, “There was no debate. They didn't talk about anything, just inciting the crowd. They were having fun with the crowd, and the crowd was having fun with them.”

Upon reaching the podium, Gilchrist picked up his cell phone and said into the microphone, “Hi, honey, yes, I'm with the most eclectic collection of social maladroits I've ever seen.”

And then came the moment of contention that has been captured and replayed on national television. “I was standing about the seven or eight rows from the stage,” said Gebremariam. “I saw two students go onstage with the banner, and suddenly there was a movement of people onto the stage.”

“We participated in a non-violent protest by unfurling a banner onstage,” said Monique Dols, GS '07 and a member of the International Socialist Organization. “The Minutemen isolated themselves from the majority of the room. When we unfurled the banner, we got support from the majority. I guess people were tired of the abuse and racist garbage the Minutemen were spewing.”

Beach recalled, “Someone in the crowd rushed out and grabbed the banner. It turned into chaos. A number of students were surrounding Marvin Stewart—that's when Gilchrist's bodyguards came out and surrounded him, like he thought some of the students would assault him.”

“I saw a man with a blue baseball cap who suddenly jumped onstage and started pointing at people around him,” Gebremariam said. “I saw the man's foot go back, then go forward and kick who I now know is Martín [López]. I was screaming and saying to my friend, 'Did you see it? Did you see it?'” Soon after, she noticed a red-haired girl wearing a turquoise shirt “being pulled and pushed very violently and being aggressively handled, and I'm just standing at the stage screaming.”

The girl in the turquoise shirt was Olivo. “We were opening the banner. I was on the corner on the far right of the stage, closest to the guy [who was wearing a white shirt and blue baseball cap],” recalled Olivo. “He was standing up, then soon he was onstage. I'm trying to hold [the banner] up, when he grabbed my left shoulder then pushed me downward toward the right. I didn't notice him [next to me] until I hit the ground.”

For Olivo, who decided to join the protest when she saw a College Republicans flyer advertising the event, this assault was a complete shock. When asked what she had expected to come out of the protest, she said, “I wasn't sure. I wasn't expecting them to hit us, that's for sure. Maybe in my own head, I thought of different scenarios—maybe the security guards would take us off, but never that, never to be flung to the ground.” Olivo maintained that she was at least five feet away from Gilchrist, with no visual contact, and clearly posed no physical threat. “I'm five-two; I'm not much of a threat. He was about six-two. What am I going to do?”

As violence threatened to escalate, Columbia Public Safety moved to clear the stage. The entire sequence of events took less than 10 minutes.

Enter the Spin Zone

The stories that emerged in the media in the following days bore little resemblance to what these students had seen. “I specifically said that I saw a Minuteman kick someone. I'd spoken to media outlets, but the story never got published,” Gebremariam said. “Makes me wonder, what is the truth? How's that portrayed in the media?”

University President Lee Bollinger remained silent the day after the event, even amid reports by news outlets across the nation. On the morning of Oct. 6, Mayor Bloomberg said on a WABC radio show that “Bollinger's just got to get his hands around this. There's just too many incidents at the same school where people get censored...I think it's an outrage that somebody who was invited didn't get a chance to speak.”

At the end of that work day, the Office of the President finally released a public statement in which Bollinger described the incident as “one of the most serious breaches of academic faith” and denounced the alleged infringement on the speakers' right of expression. He announced that any participants who might have violated the Rules of University Conduct could face charges and punishment.

When asked on FOX's O'Reilly Factor two days after the event whether he felt safe on campus, Kulawik said, “I have faith in my peers. But after last night, I really do question...It's a minority. It really is a minority who...” At which O'Reilly interjected, “But a fanatical minority. And there isn't any counter to them.”

In the weeks since the event, student protesters who had spoken to the press have been harassed with frequent phone calls and hostile e-mail messages. After the New York Sun allegedly misquoted protester Ryan Fukumori, CC '09, a conservative blogger found and posted his e-mail address on the web. Of the many angry readers who e-mailed Fukumori, one said, “I'll be there to pull the lever and watch you hang.” Karina García CC '07, political chair of the Chicano Caucus, also received her share of hate mail, replete with derogatory language and racial slurs. Perhaps more frighteningly, even students without any direct or identifiable ties to the protest have been targeted. One man from California e-mailed two of Fukumori's fellow board members of the Asian American Alliance with “for Ryan Fukumori” in the subject line, and opened the letter with “Hey gook.”

López has filed a report against his unidentified attacker with the NYPD. On October 20, the Columbia Spectator identified the man who assaulted López and Olivo as Kevin Hahulski, a union construction worker from Queens. He said in an interview that although he is not a Minuteman, he supports “what they do.” López asserts that “nothing's changed we're still going to press charges against him.” Olivo will now also press charges, as she had intended right after the attack.

Free Speech for Whom?

CHRISTOPHER SHAY

The issue that has continued to define the discussion is the right to free speech. Ironically, concern for the Minuteman Project's right to speak has completely eclipsed any discussion of what they were originally supposed to speak about. Many critics believe that a university should allow everyone an equal say, while others believe that Columbia's obligation to let outsiders speak has limits. “The Minutemen are not a legitimate part of the debate on immigration,” insisted protester David Judd, SEAS '08. “They are disgusting racists who perpetrate violence against immigrants. Because of who the Minutemen are, it is impossible to have an academic dialogue.”

In a joint press release, the students who occupied the stage said that Bollinger, a noted First Amendment scholar, was applying a double standard to free speech on campus. In the midst of the Middle Eastern and Asian Languages and Cultures department controversy in 2004, Bollinger said, “The First Amendment does not apply to the University, because it is a private institution. It can choose its policies for how to treat faculty utterances.” Yet in the recent statement Bollinger released concerning the protest of the Minuteman Project, he was quick to invoke free speech as an absolute principle: “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.”

The Latino Law Students Association (LaLSA) of Columbia Law School said in an e-mail to Bollinger that “A revocation of Gilchrist's invitation to use Columbia University as a platform for his vitriol would not have amounted to the quashing of free speech &You have recognized that upholding a healthy and safe academic environment must be a consideration when deciding to whom we extend the privilege to speak here.” The group pointed to the revocation of an invitation to Iranian President Ahmadinejad to speak at the World Leaders Forum in September. At that time, amid pressure to explain his withdrawal of the invitation that had been extended only hours before by outgoing SIPA Dean Lisa Anderson, Bollinger offered an explanation: “We were not able to ever establish a conversation with the Iranian Embassy that would ensure to my satisfaction that the specific arrangements of any such program would reflect the academic values that are the hallmark of a University event.”

What Columbia administrators and the press have failed to acknowledge is that the violent abuse of immigrants is personal for many of the protesters and for members of Latino and other immigrant communities. “We went up to hold up banners to express our feelings, to speak for ourselves, our families, and the millions of people who can't speak for themselves,” García said.

LaLSA expressed a similar sentiment in their e-mail: “Gilchrist, for many members of the Columbia community, symbolizes something beyond mere 'bad words.' For Latinos in particular, his brand of dehumanization offends and threatens the very core of our identities.”

“If the KKK came to speak, would we have treated them the same?” asked Dols, one of the students who had unfurled the banner onstage. “In our view, do the Minutemen not come out of the same tradition as the KKK? We were there to respond to their racist speech with our anti-racist speech.”

“[Dean] Colombo talked about how there are alternative expressions of voice, such as alternative publications,” reported May Lin, CC '07 and political chair of the United Students of Color Council, days after a meeting of administrators and student leaders regarding the incident. “Well, students of color have been trying to do this, but voices are still contained because there are resource and institutional problems &The issue of free speech is really convoluted. The administration talked about alternative ways to get points across, to protect disrupting free speech. But different people have different levels of access to free speech.”

No Regrets

According to Facts About Columbia Essential to Students (FACETS), the Columbia University student handbook, “It is necessary to impose reasonable restraints on the place and manner in which picketing and other demonstrations are conducted &to protect the concurrent rights of both the University community as a whole and demonstrators.”

As of press time, five students have been contacted by the administration for preliminary interviews in the investigation. Depending on whether and with what they are charged, they may face suspension or dismissal. Protest organizers admitted that they had not consulted FACETS before planning the event. Many of the students who went onstage, however, were not part of any planned protest at all and were just caught up in the moment.

“I don't regret getting up there,” García reflected. “We are getting support from across the country, even as far as Arizona—from Mexico and Guatemala!—people are standing up for us. We're getting phone calls and e-mails. They're saying, 'Good job, hermana.' Over 4,000 people have sent Bollinger messages calling for no reprisals and urging him to drop investigations against the protesters. We have support from whole schools like the Bronx Community College.”

At the same time, she noted that she and the students at the core of this controversy stand more or less alone in the Columbia community, sensing apathy from a large portion of students and faculty. She said, “This is not somewhere where people actually feel it. These are privileged people paying over $40,000 to go here. They don't know—we know. You get your free speech, and we get shot. Our families are out there in the desert.”

Although the Chicano Caucus released public statements saying they did not endorse the actions of the students who had rushed onstage, García felt that they have made their point. “We were successful because people saw who the Minutemen really are,” she said. “This organization is not interested in debate. They are only interested when they have a shotgun in their hands.”