The Consequences of Controversial Events

Only one year ago, Columbia’s ‘”fascist liberal anarchists” undertook their crusade against free speech, storming and occupying the stage from which Jim Gilchrist and his Minutemen comrades were simply presenting their ideas. Just last week, Columbia University proved negligent in its decision to bring in Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak, granting this bigot and his ideas a legitimizing Columbia University podium which would result in disastrous consequences. Or so many members of the media and the Columbia community would simultaneously have it (see your favorite fair and balanced news agency for an explicit example). To be sure, from last year’s impassioned cries proclaiming the sanctity of “free speech” and “civil debate” to last weeks last week’s righteous warnings of the effects of Ahmadinejad’s “ evil” and propagandistic rhetoric, many common voices are to found. Those who had so fervently denounced last year’s protesters found themselves rehashing nearly identical arguments to those employed by the fascist liberal anarchists (one marked example being the reminder of Columbia’s infamous 1933 hosting of Nazi ambassador Hans Luther). Turning a blind eye to the conspicuous hypocrisy and inconsistency, I applaud this newfound recognition—Ahmadinejad’s appearance, and for that matter any voiced ideas, will have consequences.

As such, the resulting question begs itself: How are we to responsibly predict potential social consequences of proposed speakers? To use an Eric Fonerism, perhaps a brief glance at history can provide some context and insight into potential ramifications.
Fortunately, recent history has provided us with what should be quite useful material. Surely, few will forget the “supreme evil” our government so diligently warned us of only five years ago. Few will forget the supposed maniacal Middle Eastern leader poised to spitefully take extreme action against the free and enlightened Western world. Few will forget how it all soon revealed itself as unfounded fear-mongering used to fabricate a foundation for military invasion, for devastating bombings and destruction, for mass death and displacement. Few will forget that there was no international dialogue or debate, and few will fail to recognize in hindsight that there was little judicious analysis or consideration of the actual realities of the situation at hand.

Today, it is not difficult to smell a familiar scent in the air. The drum of hysteria and deception which was banged so loudly and effectively for Saddam Hussein is now resonating at full blast for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Incredulous? See the refusal of President Ahmadinejad’s request to visit Ground Zero, and the implicit, and wildly unfounded, link between the Iranian government and Sept. 11, 2001 (ring a bell?). See the extensive misrepresentation of Ahmadinejad: from claims of his fervent anti-Semitism (despite the fact that he permits Jews proportional representation in Iranian parliament and insists on distinguishing between “Jews” and “Zionists”) to claims that he is a “petty and cruel dictator” (seemingly belied that he, in fact, has very little political authority whatsoever). We have seen the morbid results of refusing to engage or thoroughly analyze for ourselves an obstacle to American-Middle-Eastern hegemony; hopefully, Ahmadinejad’s visit represents a walk down a divergent path.
And what of Mr. Gilchrist? Fortunately, Jim Gilchrist does not represent an organization of 70 million people. Fortunately, the Minutemen have been denounced by even the far-right of the immigration debate (called a “vigilantes” by Dubya himself), and are at the moment merely a fledgling fringe organization. However, unfortunately, we have seen other such groups in history, and we have witnessed their steady climb into mainstream dialogue and to mass membership. Indeed, we have seen how the KKK used every podium it could muster to propagate racial scapegoating, and the tragic consequences of the momentum this created. Here, the historical evidence is clear: Only when given an opportunity to spread far and wide the mantra of racial hatred and violence do such organizations become the significant, and devastating, opponents to a pluralist society seen all to frequently in American history.

To be sure, many opposed to Ahmadinejad’s speaking were also wary of the consequences his appearance would have. Many feared that his presence at an American university would legitimize his bigoted and disgusting rule among Iranian people. However, this view proves insensitive to history as well. One will recall that the legitimacy of the regime of the Islamic Revolution among its people has its roots in its antagonism towards the West and its long history of exploitation, and that the illegitimacy of the overthrown Shah lies in his alleged alliance with the West. That an appearance in the States would serve to legitimize Ahmadinejad thus seems unlikely.

Similarly, many were wary of the publicity and momentum which denying Jim Gilchrist the podium, which rushing the stage, would yield. A year having passed, we need no other historical example to the consequences of this action than the instance itself. The recent plight of Jim Gilchrist and the Minutemen certainly belies the aforementioned concerns. Since being rushed by Columbia students, the Minuteman Project has entered into a state of intense disarray. The organization experienced what Gilchrist has called a “hijacking,” with widespread infighting which has lead to counter-lawsuits between Gilchrist and other members regarding ownership and leadership of the organization. Gilchrist personally, and the group socially, have achieved anything but legitimacy. Instead, they appear to be in shambles. Correlation is not causation, but the previous warnings have by no means been substantiated.

Some sidestepped any theoretical hypocrisy, decrying both Gilchrist and Ahmadinejad for their respective bigotry but nonetheless supporting their right to speak at Columbia. Hopefully, however, the two events have lent critical insight into their sacrosanct free speech; that free speech never exists in any theoretical or neutral bubble, but is always subject to sociopolitical context, embedded in power relations. For, while the Columbia administration went to extraordinary lengths to make sure that Ahmadinejad’s views would be forcefully critiqued, there were no such efforts made for the Minutemen. Where was President Bollinger’s scathing criticism and qualification to introduce Jim Gilchrist? Where was the deep consideration of those members of the Columbia community who would obviously and understandably feel threatened and offended? The clear prioritization of Zionist concerns over those of the Latino community is telling in regards to the functional realities of “free speech.” Freedom of speech should not be an arbitrary mechanism and facade used to facilitate and ensure a free-flowing defense of powerful classes and simultaneously to rationalize the neglect and attack of society’s powerless classes. Yet this is the form it has taken at Columbia.
“Free speech” is presented as an available and equitable function for all of society, divorced from the power structure in which it takes place—yet society’s rich and powerful continue to have a dominating voice in American democracy. It is presented as the ultimate vehicle for progress—yet progress has historically tended to bloom as a result of struggle, not the moral suasion of question-and-answer sessions. Moreover, the consequences of voiced ideas have been diverse, from tragic to heroic.

Ahmadinejad and Gilchrist both voice highly offensive and potentially dangerous ideas, but they represent significantly different situations. History seemingly indicates that respective appearances by the two would have highly divergent results; perhaps we can learn from history in order to create a new one, in this case, one void of racist vigilante movements and unjust wars of aggression.

The author is a Columbia College junior majoring in history.