Confusion Mars Gilchrist Invitation

PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 19, 2007

The Columbia Political Union’s decision not to sponsor an appearance by Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, came about after several miscommunications regarding the inclusion of Karina Garcia, CC ‘07, according to the president of CPU.

History professor David Eisenbach, the founder of the Friendly Fire speaker series, had been in conversations with Garcia about holding an event featuring her and Gilchrist. On Oct. 4 of last year, Gilchrist’s speech in Roone Arledge Auditorium was halted after Garcia and other student protesters rushed the stage.

According to Garcia, she sent an e-mail to Eisenbach on Sept. 5 indicating that she was not interested in debating Gilchrist.

“I [had] told him that I would think about it, and then in the e-mail I sent him, I said no,” she said. “I don’t know if he misunderstood. I don’t know if he’s lying—I just know that I was very clear in saying no.”

Alastair Shearman, SEAS ’08 and president of CPU, said that Eisenbach never relayed the message to the board. Early on the morning of Sept. 11, the board voted in favor of hosting the event with the understanding that Garcia and Gilchrist would both appear.

But Shearman said that it was not until two days later while meeting with Eisenbach and administrators that he learned from Ajay Nair, head of the Office of Multicultural Affairs, that Garcia would not be participating in the event.

According to Shearman, members of the CPU then met the next day with Lucha, a Latino student group of which Garcia is a member. “We had a back and forth discussion on the merits of the event and whether it was worth having, and they clarified to us in no uncertain terms that neither Garcia nor any other members of Lucha were willing to debate,” he said.

The board met with Eisenbach late Monday night, voting five to three not to sponsor an event with just Gilchrist.

“We did not choose to terminate any conversations to have the event because Gilchrist is controversial or because of pressure from students or groups,” said Jason Bello, CC ’08 and editor in chief of the Columbia Political Review’s Web log The Columns. “Any event that was not structured like the event we wanted to have would not have had the same discussion.”

“They still engage in violence. They still take guns to the border,” Garcia said, explaining why she was “not going to legitimize” Gilchrist by debating him. She added, “That’s always been our position—we will have an event, but not with Gilchrist.”

For his part, Eisenbach said that Garcia never expressed to him that she was unwilling to participate in the event, and, in fact, strongly indicated that she wanted to go forward with it.

“Human communication got confused, and it’s neither of our faults,” Eisenbach said.

Early Monday morning, Garcia told Spectator that she was unaware of any conversations about Gilchrist’s returning to campus. On Tuesday night, however, she said that she had misunderstood the inquiry and was only referring to direct discussions with the CPU.

Gilchrist said that he had been invited and planned to speak at the University on Monday, but Eisenbach said Monday night that any conversations had been preparatory. “There was no official invitation. There were discussions—preliminary discussions, which you have to have in order to make an event like this happen, but an official invitation from the CPU? No.”

Eisenbach has said that he would still consider hosting the event if another student group offered to sponsor it, but none had volunteered as of last night.

University President Lee Bollinger was asked about the events while appearing on Inside City Hall on local television station NY1.

“Students can invite people for political reasons or whatever reasons they want, but they can also choose not to invite people, and my understanding is that some student groups have decided not to invite somebody to speak, and that’s their right, too,” he said.

Upon hearing about the CPU’s revocation of sponsorship, Gilchrist, speaking to the Associated Press, accused the group of “succumbing to pressure from anti-freedom-of-speech gangsters.”

John Davisson and Jacob Schneider contributed to this article.
The reporters can be reached at news@columbiaspectator.com.

Article Tools:

View Comments ( 2)

Post a Comment

"In a university setting, no view is too disreputable to be excluded—the goal of a university is to hear and present a wide array of opinions so that they may be challenged and debated in the spirit of free speech and the pursuit of knowledge."

The above quote refers to Ahmadinejad. Shouldent the same apply to Gilchrist?

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • You may use <swf file="song.mp3"> to display Flash files inline
  • Allowed HTML tags: <!--pagebreak--><p><br><i><b><a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><!--pagebreak-->
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Security question, designed to stop automated spam bots