Confrontation, Dialogue, and the John Ashcroft Welcoming Committee

Thank heavens for John Ashcroft.

Just when campus politics seemed destined to be dull this semester, with an absence of scandal that was uncharacteristic of Columbia, in came the former Attorney General to save the day. From the very first hint that he was coming, students on both sides of the aisle snapped into action to make the most of the opportunity. Unfortunately, while there is much Columbia students can be proud of in the way his visit was handled, the event provided a bit for the student body to be ashamed of, as well.

Indeed, there is much about the Ashcroft event that Columbia can be proud of. First, there was the close cooperation between the University administration and event's sponsors themselves-the College Conservatives, College Republicans, Columbia Political Union, Columbia Citadel, and Federalist Society. As a result of their collected efforts, the Ashcroft event was able to accommodate over 1,000 members of Columbia's community, more than 600 of whom were not affiliated with any of the groups sponsoring the event.

This, of course, was a notable contrast to the last time a major White House speaker came to campus, President Clinton himself, in February 2004. As Spectator reported then, "Very few undergraduates were present at the speech, upsetting many students who wished to attend." Indeed, the only undergraduates allowed at the event were those pre-selected by former College Democrats President Zac Frank, upsetting even many College Democrats at the time. Accordingly, not a single College Republican was allowed in. By contrast, with RSVPs and walk-in seating, all students who wanted to see Ashcroft were allowed to.

There was also a notable contrast between how the two events were run and the allegations made against organizers beforehand. For instance, two days before the Ashcroft event, College Democrats Political Affairs Director Mike Nadler declared in Spectator that it "should come as no surprise that when John Ashcroft comes to speak to Columbia University students on Wednesday, their freedom of speech will suffer." What followed was a litany of accusations, suggesting that all questions would be pre-screened and that the RSVP process was being handled to "weed out liberals and libertarians interested in attending Mr. Ashcroft's speech." None of these accusations were at all based in truth. Perhaps Nadler was just used to the policies of the College Democrats for the Clinton event.

Nadler's comments were part of a systematic effort led by the College Democrats and the ACLU called the "John Ashcroft Welcoming Committee." As described by College Democrats President Seth Flaxman, "The whole point was to make sure tough questions were asked of Ashcroft." The behavior of the committee, however, suggests that that alone was not the goal. For instance, the committee did not first attempt to bring their concerns directly to the Ashcroft organizers. Instead, they immediately chose the path of confrontation over dialogue. Aside from protests on the day of the event, the committee spent over $500 on a campaign to poster against the event and purchased a large Spectator advertisement that cost $1,008. In the end, they spent a significant amount without first asking how the event would be run or trying to work with organizers.

How is it possible, though, that the College Democrats, the declared primary financial backers of the committee, were able to spend more in student activity funds against Ashcroft than the College Republicans receive in an entire year? Certainly, that money could have been better spent­-I'd imagine there is no shortage of Clinton administration officials who are now available to speak at Columbia, and I would have tough questions for them too.

In the end, nobody can accuse the Ashcroft sponsors of excluding liberals. After all, as Spectator reported on the day of the event, Ari Rosmarin, one of the committee's main organizers, said that "most students in the committee who had requested a seat had received a reply." Furthermore, those without replies were allowed walk-in seating.

Allegations that the only questions allowed would be pre-screened "softball questions" were unfounded, too. After all, two of the first three questions-the only ones pre-selected-came from the College Democrats and the ACLU. As for the remaining five questions, all were asked from open microphones that were given out on a first come, first serve basis, and three were discernibly "hardball."

Yet given the opportunity to attend the event, some on the Left acted childishly at best. Though not representative of all those on the Left, hecklers throughout the event yelled attacks like "fascist" and "Nazi" that had no place in any real dialogue and reflected very poorly on Columbia students as a whole. With this constant bombardment, those who were purportedly defending the rights of people to defend themselves from Ashcroft sought to undermine his right to defend himself.

Of course, dialogue involves hard questions. It also, however, involves being willing to listen to the other sides' answers.