Oct

18

39 Comments

  1. this one's

    actually sort of well-written for a change, even i though i totally disagree with him and am so sick of his woe is me shit i could barf

    • bull  

      I agree the majority on campus needs to band together in support of civil debate, but praising the thuggish jocks who formed a human chain to deny the '68 protesters food in the manner of some medieval siege was sort of a ridiculous move

      • rjt  

        They were border-patrolling Low.

      • ugh thuggish  

        jocks? yeah that why it was a thousands of person majority. and the small minority of socialists and radicals who actually physically seized the buildings certainly weren't thuggish right?

        • stats

          The Majority Coalition had 2,000 supporters. Columbia College in 1968 had a student population of 2,700. Do the math.

        • look  

          it wouldn't bother me if kulawik had simply praised the thousands of people that signed the petition against the radicals occupying the buildings. but chris also makes a point to praise the people surrounding low, who were thuggish jocks, and who did deny people food, which is not an effective means to persuade one to engage in civil discourse, only to perpetuate retributionary extremism.

          • no way  

            it isn't thuggish. denying food to those who are occupying buildings illegally is tried and tested method of ending such things. There's no physical violence at all in that situation and its a legitimate tactic to end a violent takeover. By the way, what a joke, do you think the proper way to engage radicals who've occupied buildings is to 'encourage civil discourse'. What discourse? Do you think that the majority coalition should have gotten a podium and mic and have tried to convince the occupiers the errors of their ways? The same loons who ended up killing them in amateurish terrorist attempts as part of SDS? Give me a break.

            and to #8, how does that NOT support my point? the majority supported the ending of the takeover and the occupation was by a group of radicals that was a minority.

          • it was  

            a tried and tested method- back in 1383. not even hostage negotiators deny food. when the egyptian army was trapped and encircled by the IDF in 1973, they were given food. isn't this just basic humanitarianism?

          • are you stupid  

            a hostage situation is different from an occupation one becuase well there are hostages. and in 1973 the egyptian army and IDF woudl both be obligated to follow the geneva conventions. no, this isn't just basic humanitarianism. Good job trying to substitute to situations which aren't analagous though.

          • umm  

            I don't see how something like the geneva conventions can apply in war but its principles cannot be adopted in the wake of a nonviolent building occupation.

          • no prob  

            i'll explain, notice the preface on them:

            Adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of
            International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Geneva
            from 21 April to 12 August, 1949

            http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

            The UDHR arent the geneva conventions and there's a difference between prisoners and occupiers as well as the application of the UDHR to the methods of police forces, which are necessarily more elastic

          • but  

            this wasn't a military occupation. nor were the majority coalition jocks police forces.

            I actually think it was justifiable to arrest the protesters in the case of 1968...unfortunately it was a PR disaster due to the beatings in execution, but at least there was sound principle behind the attempt. somehow "starve them out" does not ring as true. if we can give prisoners the right to basic human needs after being charged with a crime and having allegedly violated the social contract, and even provide those needs after they have been found guilty, then we can assuredly we can provide such rights in the case of what was certainly a far more minor incident than those which most felons commit. it does not, and I'll anticipate the reaction, abet the crime by allowing it to be perpetuated; we only allow the infringement of rights (such as the ability of a law enforcement officer to shoot someone) in cases of imminent danger. a protracted and nonviolent occupation is not such a situation. moreover, the state/university places itself in a better position to be arbiter of justice when it seizes the moral upper hand by attending to standards violators ignore.

  2. hmm  

    anyone notice how omar siddiqi's column makes a not-too-subtle rhetorical shift from what one republican said about the protesters to the way people on campus think about "minorities"? was he just confused?

  3. rjt  

    To prevent any illegal foods from entering, I mean.

  4. I think  

    the lesson we have to take away from 1968 is the same lesson we have to take away from the Minuteman protest: sometimes, BOTH sides can act wrongfully. Mistakes were made by almost everyone involved in each incident.

    • uh no  

      what did the republicans do wrong in the minuteman event? that lone minutemen kicker was sure an ass, but don't try false equivocation

      • mistake  

        the republican mistake was probably inviting the minutemen in the first place...of course they have a "right" to speak and whatnot, but this was not exactly a wise or productive decision

        • what a joke  

          this is blame the victim sydrome right here. First, you admit they have a right and are legitimate speakers on the issue. But they still shouldn't have been invited? I'm guessing its because they were too provocative. Still its absurd to ask the republicans, who's mainstream conservative candidates are probably too provocative on this campus, to suddenly have to satisfy a higher burden of academic viability than other groups. One things for sure, chomsky/finkelstein/ashcroft/chavez are all provocative too and their events went off without a hitch.

          • I'm saying  

            right does not automatically confer desirability. of course if I were a racist, I would have a right to say "I hate blacks/jews/whatever"...but it would be stupid from a strategic/personal viewpoint. inviting the minutemen further polarized campus and caused damage to columbia's reputation- it was simply unwise to initiate such provocation.

            of course, visits by left radicals may not cause problems (btw, chavez' visit never even happened), but that's a structural issue. it would be wrong to preclude such speakers on the basis of maintaining ideological balance. preferably radicals of all stripes would be able to speak here, but until then, it would be best to do all we can to allow anyone who can speak safely to come, while ensuring incidents like 10-4 do not occur again.

          • first  

            there's no proof the minutemen as an organziation are racist. second, the only new point you made was that the minutemen 'further polarized' the campus and 'caused damage' to columbia's reputation.

            Both of these are obviously false. First, how could they further polarize on a divisive issue when the univerity is already staunchly, proudly and loudly liberal? By that token, any notable conservative speaker would 'further polarze'. Furthermore, considering that a Q&A session wasn't even allowed, its hard to claim they were the cause of the polarization as opposed to storming protestors. Secondly, how did they damage our reputation? There are multiple polls which show support for their organization nationally, so it certainly can't be a national thing. If you mean that it would damage our reputation with regards to be being a liberal bastion, then believe me, there's no way that you'll ever understand what discourse truly mean. As a consequence, there's no way the event as originally planned was unwise.

            And visits by left radicals don't cause problems not becuase of structural issues (though its true, when you're invited by depts. or profs. you don't have to worry about security as much anymore) but because there just aren't the protestors there who are going to take violent means of protest. I agree though we need to allow anyone, of all radical stripes to come and speak in a safe environment, however prior to 10-4 i and i think columbia never imagined that some of my peers would be so intellectually barren to actually physically shut down speech on this campus.

          • you use  

            my hypothetical to indicate you think I'm calling them racist, which tells me a lot about your logical reasoning/critical reading skills right off the bat. let's just establish forthwith that I can think the minutemen not exactly the best choice of speaker while not vehemently despising them/making unsubstantiated statements.

            if you believe it was a fine idea for the minutemen to come regardless (and your points regarding their national standing are conceded), then the republicans should have at least steered the event in some respect toward productive dialogue. from what I understand, stewart and gilchrist were intent on goading the protesters and making ridiculous blanket statements. perhaps that was just their prelude and the rest was to come after what became the stage-storming, but it was clearly in bad taste and if anything contributed, if not to the same degree, to the atmosphere in the auditorium as the protesters' actions did. of course I wouldn't condone the stage storming for this reason; in fact, it was quite stupid to incite a melee when the minutemen's rhetoric was so self defeating. still, I wonder if the republicans knew the mmen had a record of such vitriolic speech...

        • where were you  

          when the admin invited the founder of the Black Panthers... for NATIVE AMERICAN MONTH

          What about Chavez?

          the list could go on

    • omg  

      it's "let me step in at some later juncture of the debate and say both sides are right" man! dare anyone resist his ironclad evenhandedness?

      • erm  

        Hooked on phonics didn't work for you, huh? I said both sides were wrong, not right. Wrong...right...goodness, if you're having trouble distinguishing those two words, you're going to have some interesting legal problems later in life. "But officer..."
        Republican mistakes? How about letting the Kulawik mouthpiece go off on O'Reilly and make it sound like all Columbia liberals are foaming-at-the-mouth crazy. Three Columbia students got into a verbal fight with a MilVet. Three. I had nothing to do with it, none of my liberal friends did, either. None of my friends were part of the 10-4 fracas. Yet thanks to the Repubs bellyaching to every press junket, the Right thinks we're all a bunch of ill-mannered violent thugs. Thanks to the actions of a few students that even most of us liberals would not wish to be associated with.
        So when I say both sides made mistakes, I meant it, and I didn't mean "both sides are right."

        • i'm not 13  

          but please, that's an after the event accusation, so there's no equivalence between the protestors (who also made all of columbia look like fools) and the republicans

          and i love how you try to talk about kulawik without even mentioning what he actually said. Kulawik specifically said on the program that the majority of columbians are good and value free speech. His claim that the overall atmosphere isn't conducive to free speech is a fair criticism though as it doesnt mean that all people have to be responsible for that. If you think oreilly was wrong or an idiot, i'll happily defend you, but otherwise there's not much equivalence here. Kulawik isn't going to spend the entire interview defending columbia when such an event did happen and he still prefaced it by saying most people are good.

  5. typical  

    Kulawik makes a cogently argued point that reasonable people regardless of ideology can support, and then ruins it with his need to throw in a token to the David Horowitz crowd: "When Fahrenheit 9/11 is shown in a Civil Engineering class, because conservative faculty members are nonexistent and the department is overtly politicized, we must ask ourselves: "Are Columbians truly prepared to respond to individuals and ideas that challenge their status quo?"...Today's College Republicans and conservatives are no exception; so long as they value the education over the degree, they will continue to challenge the rampant bias and complete absence of ideological diversity." Le sigh.

  6. Sigh...  

    Two people found dead in the neighborhood, one a nine year old, and we're still bitching about the minutemen.

    • well  

      it looks like a personal case. pending an investigation, there's not much to say. the nature of it does not, at least, make one fear for one's life in the area, and so it's not really necessarily a matter of public debate. in fact it seems lurid to exploit it for such.

    • Anonymous  

      "bitching" is not quite the word. this is discourse. what is the need to interrupt discourse?

  7. wow

    I am definitely another person who cannot believe that this debate continues to go on. Kulawik is a Spec columnist. Today was the day for his article to run. What did you expect him to write about? I believe that the article was probably the best and most fair that he has ever written. He could have very easily written a crazy rant against everyone. People really need to give him some credit. I can't even imagine what his life must be like if everyone is always personally attacking him like this. No wonder he is so bitter. Also, I seriously doubt he is the only person in College Republicans, so all the blame can't just fall on him.

  8. spec correction  

    fantastic. And in small print:

    "Editor's Note: The staff editorial "More than ADD" (Oct 16) was bsaed on inaccurate information and therefore drew conclusions that were not valid."

  9. DHI  

    "Attempts to pass food, water, and supplies to the protesters (or "pukes," as they referred to themselves) inside were intercepted by Coalition members."

    Look past the question of whether or not an attempt can be intercepted, and see the evidence of why the jocks were right. It says "food, water, and SUPPLIES". What do you think supplies were, pencils and paper? Not very likely. Nuclear motherfucking weapons, people. Nuclear motherfucking weapons. These heroes were preventing DOOMSDAY! DOOMSDAY! Nuclear holocaust, maybe even worse, nuclear winter! Winter! And before the invention of nuclear skis, and proper nuclear gloves for nuclear snowball fights! There would have been missed nuclear opportunities to go along with the death and destruction! Luckily the supplies were intercepted, thanks to the Majority Coalition!

  10. Anonymous  

    Why isn't Chris Kulawik in Iraq?

  11. Anonymous

    Why did Chris say the Civil Engineering department is full of left wing thinkers...? I mean is that even accurate? Showing Fahrenheit 9/11 in an engineering class that examines forensic analysis of structures doesn't sound like a big deal to me. It has video footage and analysis of what happened, convenient. Again, way to slander an entire department that I'm almost positive, Kulawik has no idea about.

    • no way

      farenheit 9/11 doesn't purport to be a documentary about the structural collapse of the twin towers. To try to suggest that somehow and obviously harsly partisan and polarizing political documentary is apporpriate for a science class is specious to say the least.

      • Anonymous

        maybe the professor didn't have easy access to any documentary or video that had shots of the twin towers. Who knows, you, chris, and I don't know. We don't know when it happened and we don't know why it happened. To speculate that just because it was shown that it is evidence that an entire department is full of left wingers is pretty ridiculous. The civil engineering department... get serious.

        I mean that is almost as stupid as saying that the electrical engineering department I was a part of is full of right wingers because a professor told us we had to goto class on election day 2004; and that if we did skip to goto vote, we should vote Republican. Silly

      • Anonymous

        if the professor did show the video to politicize his class and for that purpose only, then that was innapropriate.

        however, where is the proof that this occurred? who is witness to this, which professor was it, what class was it, what was the context, etc. the only thing that i think anyone can find is repeated heresay on the matter, heresay that is repeated over and over again.

        the same event was attributed to a penn state professor, an example which has since ceased being used since the person who keeps bringing up these examples, David Horowitz, couldn't find any proof nor did he know of any. I wonder if Kulawitz has any factual proof about his allegation that the civil engineering department is all politicall slanted to the left or if he is just parroting Horowitz.

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.