How Far Can You Go Against Hugo?

Click here: Columbia Spectator - How Far Can You Go Against Hugo?
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/09/19/432e363625020?in_archive=1

Opinion


How Far Can You Go Against Hugo?
Talking Turkey
By Dennis Schmelzer

September 19, 2005

Mr. Bollinger, tear down this wall!

No, I am not talking about Columbia�s gates; McKim, Mead, and White may have sought an open academic village, but a closed campus is fine by me. That is, of course, provided that it is closed to unwelcome intruders, not unwelcome ideas. Unfortunately, as a few students found out this week when they tried to organize a demonstration against the policies of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who later canceled his visit to campus, sometimes Columbia�s administration intentionally shuts out ideas.

The wall I am referring to, then, consists of administrative hurdles designed to prevent students from exercising their rights to free speech.

For instance, to get permission to demonstrate at the Sundial for a �level 3� event on campus, a student group must reserve the space a week ahead of time; conveniently, for the Chavez event, notice was only posted on the World Leaders Forum Web site on Sept. 13, more than a week after most other speakers were listed and just three days before the event. So much for the week-long notice for the protest.

At first, some of those requirements make a lot of sense; after all, one can understand that Hugo Chavez would have legitimate security concerns, particularly after Pat Robertson�s comments. Yet other speakers listed earlier included Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who has survived at least four assassination attempts in as many years. The Musharraf event, however, was listed much earlier, even though�as the World Leaders Forum Webmaster confirms�the Chavez event was planned earlier than it was actually announced.

With the help of some concerned administrators, this group of students managed to jump most of these hurdles. Some in Public Safety, in particular, were admirable in their assistance, expressing their support of the request and even providing contact information for the NYPD should the students fail to get final administrative approval and, as a result, want to demonstrate outside Columbia�s gates instead.

With security concerns addressed, though, the worst hurdle was saved for last. Claiming there was not enough time for a meeting to discuss the demonstrations, certain administrators resorted to their last line of defense; while the sponsoring student group was not told they could not demonstrate, they were warned of certain �disciplinary action� that would follow. As one advisor suggested, Columbia would have to take action against the demonstration because it could jeopardize Columbia�s ability to attract further controversial speakers. Out of fear of the consequences, the student group canceled the protest.

There were clear reasons the student group involved wanted to protest the Chavez regime�if anything, to show solidarity with students who could not freely do the same in Venezuela. As Amnesty International wrote in a recent press release on Chavez�s government, �The security forces have reportedly used excessive force, and detained large numbers of opposition supporters, during nationwide street protests against the government of President Hugo Chavez.� As for those who question such abuses, AI�s 2005 report notes further, �President Hugo Chavez suggested at the beginning of the year that the activities of human rights defenders were intended to fuel political turmoil. These allegations exposed human rights defenders to serious dangers, including threats and intimidation.�

By seeking to silence such opposition on our campus, however, those involved have shown a complicity in that repression. This is Columbia, not Colombia. I commend President Bollinger for bringing leaders like Chavez to our campus for discussion, but the opportunity to interact with such leaders is certainly not worth sacrificing the freedom of speech that Chavez�s own society so sorely lacks. Sure, Columbia students may like to hear what the Venezuelan president has to say, but not at the cost of our right to demonstrate against his actions.

In the end, this small battle behind the scenes may make little difference; Chavez ended up canceling his visit to our campus in order to have tea time with Kofi Annan, and the lucky demonstrators did not have to wait in the rain for a motorcade that never came. Still, students should never have been threatened when they sought to demonstrate in the first place. While President Bollinger teaches a class on free speech every fall semester, it is a shame that some of his administrators are not among his students. Perhaps then they would understand the chilling effect that such threats can have on speech as a whole.

While Bollinger was not directly involved with this process, in the words of President Truman, for Bollinger as both President of the University and an influential free speech advocate, �The buck stops here.� It is his responsibility to make sure that Columbia, as a center of academia, is a welcoming rather than threatening environment for free speech.

Mr. Bollinger, please tear this wall down.