A Columbia student forwarded me this e-mail from university President Lee Bollinger (link added):

Now that final exams have concluded, I would like to bring everyone up to date on what we have done to respond to the October 4 student event featuring speakers from the Minuteman Project. At the time, I said that the disruption of that event constituted a serious breach of faith against an academic community built on the freedom to think, speak, debate, and disagree.

Since then, we have taken a number of steps to enforce our University Rules of Conduct with respect to the individuals involved and to ensure more broadly that everyone at Columbia understands and appreciates the essential ethos of tolerance on this campus.

[...]

As a result of [the] investigation, the University has notified a number of Columbia students that they will be subject to discipline for having violated the Rules of University Conduct.  The Federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), however, strictly prohibits the University from divulging details of disciplinary proceedings, including the identities of participants.  That may feel unsatisfactory to some who would like to see a public announcement of specific punishments, but we must adhere to federal law in these matters of student privacy.

[...]

Finally, I want to again thank the many people in the University who have devoted time and energy to repairing the damage our community has sustained and to strengthening our shared academic values. Many students come to Columbia because we are a diverse academic community in the most diverse and global of American cities.  Even though this is a place of academic reflection, we have always been a place of lively engagement in the issues of our time and often a crucible for the heated debates that pervade society at large—locally, nationally, and globally.  We all know that words can cause pain and discomfort.  And every idea poses a risk of action, for good or bad.  But what is hard to learn and hard to live by is the single idea that words are the better way in which to work through conflict and danger.  This is certainly true for universities, but also for healthy, free societies.

I hope that Columbia is stronger for having recommitted itself to the common right of every member of this community and our guests to speak freely, on even the most difficult and contentious issues of our day.  We must now work together to ensure that we always put this core principle into practice.

I can understand President Bollinger’s reluctance to announce a punishment if indeed doing so violates federal law. But universities often act swiftly and tout punishments when doing so is what the administration desires. There was plenty of publicity when Duke University shut down the lacrosse team over a supposed rape that now seems pretty clear never happened.

Bollinger’s letter contained many words that, if taken at face value, signal a strong support of the free exchange of ideas at Columbia. So while Bollinger may claim that he can’t discuss the punishments handed down—actually, he doesn’t even say any punishments were handed down, just that some students will be subject to discipline (more future tense...even though the incident occurred nearly three months ago)—then why doesn’t he at least come out and say what will happen in future cases where students physically assault a speaker for the purpose of silencing him?

A little guidance from the university on what punishments would be meted out in the future could go a long way towards deterring another near-riot next time the College Republicans invite a speaker whose views fall outside the campus orthodoxy. Assuming, of course, that such speakers really are welcome on campus.