Possible Gilchrist Appearance on Fence

Jim Gilchrist, the controversial founder of the Minuteman Project whose visit to Columbia in fall 2006 ended in a brawl, confirmed yesterday that he was invited to return to campus for a second speaking engagement, but a withdrawal of support for the event by the Columbia Political Union made it unclear whether such an appearance would occur.

After a day of discussions, CPU voted against sponsoring an event featuring Gilchrist which would have been held in conjunction with history professor David Eisenbach. CPU had previously signed on to host an event where Gilchrist would have appeared on stage with outspoken immigration rights activist Karina Garcia, CC ’07, who was censured for her participation in last year’s protest. The vote, taken after Garcia reportedly chose not to participate, left Eisenbach, who had been conversing with Gilchrist about the potential event, looking for a new student-group sponsor.

Gilchrist said early yesterday that he planned to attend, but added, “Nothing is completely solid at this point.”

Late Sunday night, Garcia said that she was unaware of conversations regarding the event.

Gilchrist has become synonymous with controversy at Columbia in the year following his infamous appearance at Lerner Hall. Several minutes into his Oct. 4, 2006, speech, held by the Columbia University College Republicans, a group of protesters mounted the stage and unfurled a banner reading, “No one is illegal.” The ensuing violent clash between protesters and Gilchrist supporters sparked weeks of national media attention and months of debate over the limits of free speech and protest on campus.

The Minuteman Project touts itself as providing legitimate aid to U.S. law enforcement by patrolling the Mexican border for illegal immigrants, but critics charge that the groups are thinly-veiled racist organizations that practice vigilante law.

The University filed charges against a number of the protesters, ending in warnings and censures against eight students, including Garcia and International Socialist Organization President David Judd, SEAS ’08, who received a warning.

“After conversations with other student leaders and our advisors ... it became clear that this event could not take place in that form,” Alastair Shearman, SEAS ’08 and CPU general manager, said. The board voted five-to-three against sponsoring the event.

“What I said before I say again,” University President Lee Bollinger said regarding the invitation. “I fully support academics in their right to free speech and to invite speakers to campus for academic purposes, and I fully support students in their right to free speech and to invite speakers to campus for both political and academic purposes.”

Bollinger has previously stated that professors should be held to a higher standard when inviting speakers to campus, ensuring time for students to challenge the speaker. Eisenbach said that any event would include a question-and-answer period, but emphasized that it would be a student event.

“Of course I imagine there will be a protest, a large and potentially disruptive one—though I don’t know about that—and certainly I will be helping to organize it,” Judd, reached by phone Monday afternoon, said of the invitation. “I would really like to know what the hell he [Eisenbach] thinks he’s doing.”

In an e-mail to Spectator sent in January 2007, Eisenbach, founder of the “Friendly Fire” speaker series which invited high-profile speakers to debate free speech beginning last semester, indicated a desire to include Gilchrist in the lineup this year.

The event would be scheduled for Oct. 4, 2007, the one-year anniversary of Gilchrist’s prior speech.

Eisenbach said that Gilchrist would not remain invited to attend unless a student group sponsored the event, but that he was “open to the possibility” of a different club sponsor.

Lucha, a student activist organization dedicated to Latino issues, expressed outrage about the invitation. “Bringing in these extremely racist groups can only grant them legitimacy,” said spokesman Andrew Tillet-Saks, CC ’09, who received disciplinary warning. He added, “I think he [Eisenbach] wants Gilchrist to come as a cheap publicity stunt for his talk series. I think it is a very egotistical and amoral act.”

In response, Eisenbach said, “I believe in free speech and I believe that it is good for the University to have an open atmosphere where we can engage controversial ideas and speakers in a civil forum. That was my goal in creating this series. ... I see that as my morality.”

“If he [Gilchrist] is again subjected to the disgusting treatment that greeted his appearance on campus last year, it would be an act of insanity for any parent ... to spend in excess of $120,000 on a Columbia education for his or her kid,” wrote John Podhoretz, a New York Post columnist who spoke at a previous “Friendly Fire” event where he criticized Columbia protesters and administrators, in an e-mail.

Lauren Steinberg, GS/JTS ’09 and director of operations for the College Republicans, said she hadn’t previously heard of the invitation. “Personally, I really hope he’s not coming,” she said. “I mean, it was a fun time last year, but I don’t need it to happen again.”

“Personally, I do not support the idea of bringing Gilchrist back to campus,” said senior Michelle Diamond, Columbia College Student Council president and publisher of the Columbia Political Review who voted against Gilchrist coming to campus as a member of the CPU board. “I do not believe Jim Gilchrist would contribute to substantial discussions,” she added.

University Senator Sumeet Shah, SEAS ’08, offered a different view. “While I may not agree with Mr. Gilchrist’s organization, he has a right to speak on campus. Any speaker has a right to speak on campus no matter how controversial his views.”

John Davisson, Amanda Erickson, and Josh Hirschland contributed to this article.

The reporters can be reached at news@columbiaspectator.com.