Trading respect for a few minutes in the sun.

Dear Chris Kulawik,

You just went on Bill O'Reilly and sold your fellow students out. When asked if you thought that the failure of communication that occurred during the Gilchrist speech was the norm, you flatly said it was. In fact you stated that you believed that Avi Zenilman was being extremely irresponsible when he said that what occurred was largely an isolated incident.

Anyone who has gone to Columbia will be able to tell you that the events that transpired during the Gilchrist event are not indicative of the larger population of Columbia. For you to even espouse that sort of nonsense is to me, offensive and irresponsible.

You brought up the racial remarks assailed at a minority student that served in the military. Once again, I seem to recall the three students were members of the ISO; even then that incident involved three students.

The homophobic/anti-Semitic graffiti; again, two students.

At worst we have a handful of bad eggs and a basket full of some of the world's most brilliant minds, yet it has become your prerogative to tarnish the reputation of the University. Yes, we all know that University administrators have had a slow response to these allegations and issues and that is regrettable, but this is completely irrelevant to the 23,000 students that are not part of a Kool-aid drinking, "fascist-liberal-anarchist" minority that is supposedly being indoctrinated by university professors. We were not the perpetrators of hate and the free flowing dialogue between disparate ideologies has in my experience been the norm. For you to make such a blanket statement to the world about Columbia University was irresponsible. Were you being disingenuous so as to not incur the wrath of FOX commentators I would understand somewhat, and if you do truly believe that disruptive protest is the norm, it is my opinion that you are by all accounts incorrect.

When asked about the motivation for bringing Gilchrist to Columbia you responded that you wanted to give the student body the opportunity to listen and respond to different views. Surely, you and I agree that hijacking the stage was poor decision making, but I question if you are able to understand that the content of what Gilchrist and Stewart were speaking of (or planning to speak on) was such an abominable position to the protestors that it was obvious that there was no room for debate and that very few wanted to hear what he had to say. You yourself have openly criticized the university for their choices of invited speakers saying that you are outraged by the extension of an invitation and that allowing them to speak gives such speakers more legitimacy; that has been your position for Qaddafi, Ahmadinejad, Chavez, etc. So perhaps you might identify with the outrage that protestors felt at the invitation of Gilchrist that you (and most people felt) at the invitation of the aforementioned. In those cases I think you, me, almost everyone, that their beliefs and actions are so offensive to a group of people that we would not give their point of view 2-seconds of rational discourse and would express our outrage given the opportunity. That is exactly what happened at the Gilchrist event. When presented with a speaker that is so far from what students believe as having a legitimate voice and is so intimately tied to who they are as individuals, there is no listening and only responding. The difference however is that with Gilchrist, things got out of hand and the students pursued a means of expression that is regrettable. Isolated incident that got out of hand; not a widespread assault of free speech.

I’d like to remind you of the 2003 Iraq War protests that occurred on Lowe Steps. There was a protest and a protest against the protest (in usual Columbia form). There was a exchange of passionate ideas and beliefs and there was no incident, nobody’s voice was silenced.

I’d like to remind you of the 2006 Columbia College graduation commencement protest against Senator John McCain. Again, a peaceful protest, during which a fairly successful campus and internet discussion arose. The discussion pages were RIDDLED with ad hominem attacks against protestors, I will give you examples:

Kate Mahoney,

Oh Kate, you also come from a spoiled upbringing. You also got indoctrinated in the ways of elite. And to make yourself feel good you oppress others with your intolerance of other ideas. but keep up the work, because of people like you the voice of liberals is subdued and you hate is evident.. \Shame on you... Hater
Bob Kerry (CC '06)

-------------------------------------------------------
Laura Cordetti,

You come from wealthy family. You are pampered and have no idea what the real world is like. Ive got an idea, give up all your money and get a 60 hour a week job. But please stop preaching you spoiled BRAT who has nothing better to do...
-- Laur is spoiled rich girl (CC '06)
-------------------------------------------------------
Kim Sue,

Please dont "enter the world". Please spare us your agenda on hate.. You hate all who disagree with you. You hate all who speak up for what they believe but you dont.... KIM SUE YOU ARE A HATER
-- KIMSUEHATES (CC '06)
-------------------------------------------------------
Laura Cordetti - GET A LIFE and get a job too. You poor thing!
-- Tom (Contributor)

This is surely not the intellectual discourse that you were hoping to observe at Columbia, and it raises the point that “liberal jihadists” are not the only ones guilty of vitriol nor are non-liberals not free/afraid to speak their minds.

Chris, I believe you owe your fellow students an apology for publicly lambasting them and your university to the entire nation. While Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity exploded with vast generalizations and slander against the student body of Columbia, you did not speak up and defend us. You sat there, nodding your head in agreement, ignoring the high quality of education that Columbia University has provided you with. You wondered why there have been so many negative attacks against you online and behind your back; it is because you’ve failed to come to the defense of your university and your peers.

Yours truly,
Stephen Wang ’06.