I'm frequently invited to college campuses to debate the ethics of using animals for food. Over the past 18 months, I've engaged in this discussion with student debaters from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Cornell and more than 30 other universities. Last Thursday, I was supposed to engage Columbia University debaters on the topic, but five hours before the event was supposed to commence, I found myself disinvited by the university.
The event was already the most contested of any of the more than 100 talks I've given on college campuses in my 15 years at PETA: No campus has ever raised security concerns or insisted on restricting attendees to debate-team members, as Columbia did two days before the event was scheduled to take place. And no campus has ever canceled one of my events, as Columbia did five hours before the event was to begin. For the record, there has never been a security concern at one of my talks.
So what was Columbia's explanation? They told the National Review, "The University Rules of Conduct apply to all students, faculty, staff and guests on our campus. When individuals who are not members of the University community violate those rules, one of the consequences is loss of the privilege of campus access."
It seems the school is still smarting over the fact that in May of 2004 -- when most of the class of 2011 was just starting high school -- I walked up to the microphone during Columbia's commencement ceremonies, encouraged attendees to speak out against Columbia's hideously cruel animal experiments, and asked them to visit PETA's ColumbiaCruelty.com website. Although I'm sure Emily Post wouldn't have approved of my action, I did have a ticket, I didn't trespass, and I left when asked to do so. And my lack of decorum is nothing compared to the reason for it: A PETA investigation had uncovered hideous abuse of primates in Columbia laboratories, and the university was stonewalling our calls for action.
How hideous? Experimenters were inducing strokes in baboons by removing their eyeballs so that they could clamp a critical blood vessel supplying blood to their brains, they were pumping nicotine and morphine into pregnant baboons who were tethered to their cages and forced to wear backpacks, and they were implanting metal pipes into monkey's skulls in order to simulate the effects of stress on women's menstrual cycles.
Anyway, the question that Columbia should have spent more time on is this: Which is more important, free speech or a 7-year-old grudge? The school might also have more thoroughly considered the fact that the debate team worked extremely hard on this event and expected to pack the 400-seat hall. The school's decision adversely impacted its own students and the campus community, sending the message that a violation of school rules is more important than critical thinking and the free exchange of ideas.
It probably also confused some people. Remember: This is a school that defended its decision to invite Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak on campus -- a man who thinks the U.S. plotted 9/11, calls the Holocaust a "myth," and whose government executes homosexuals (which he defends). Columbia President Lee Bollinger argued that providing Columbia as a forum for Ahmadinejad "is the right thing to do" because "it is required by the existing norms of free speech, of Columbia University, and of academic institutions."
So just to be clear: According to Columbia's statement regarding the cancellation of my debate on campus, my lack of decorum warrants barring me from campus (my free-speech rights are a "privilege"), while Ahmadinejad's killing gay people and denying the Holocaust warrant the school's full-throated defense? I can't believe that Columbia's officials really thought this through.
Maybe they think the issue of cruelty to animals is one lacking in gravitas. If so, they're wrong: Animal rights is a matter of both interest and importance to students at Columbia and other universities. It is a scientific fact that other animals feel pain just as humans do, that they have the same five physiological senses that we do, and that they are made of flesh, blood and bone -- just as we are. The practical implications of this science are worthy of discussion, not thoughtless censorship.
I'm ambivalent about Columbia's decision to give Ahmadinejad a forum, but I'm impressed by its purported reasons for doing so, and by its mission statement, which speaks laudably of "knowledge and learning at the highest level."
That focus on learning is why I love speaking on college and university campuses. The bar for what would make violating that mandate acceptable should be very high, and it certainly shouldn't be cleared by a grudge based on something that took place seven years ago.
We all make mistakes -- I hope that Columbia will realize that barring me from campus is a violation of the principles of free speech and is not worthy of any institution of higher learning, and certainly not one as prestigious as Columbia.
I therefore call on Columbia University to reconsider.
A slightly shorter version of this opinion piece originally appeared in the Columbia Spectator.
Watch the Princeton debate:
or the Harvard debate:
or the Yale debate:
There are quite a few more online.
Follow Bruce Friedrich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/brucegfriedrich
Columbia should let bygones be bygones. I go to a different college, but on our campus, a lot of students are very interested in vegetarianism and animal rights, so it deserves a free and fair discussion. Let him speak!
Keep up the good work, Bruce. BTW, "witness a Bruce Friedrich lecture/debate" is high on my bucket list :)
Anyway, thanks for commenting. I am sorry that my action so unsettled you. I do think that this discussion is separate from the question of whether Columbia should have cancelled an event that was worked on so hard by its own students, and which was so well-publicized on campus.
Bruce
Clearly, Columbia has the RIGHT to bar me from campus. I just think that they should have more respect for their students and the free exchange of ideas.
I'm sorry you think I'm being self-righteous; I'm simply suggesting that Columbia reevaluate its decision to bar me from campus, based on its own mandate and its past support for freedom of speech and discussion.
Perhaps Emily Post has a chapter on politely and diplomatically dealing with a chamber of horrors such as went on at Columbia. If, so, I missed it.
But, ya know what? I really don't think people who think it's OK to abuse and torture animals are going to understand the finer points of etiquette anyway. They just don't like being told they are monsters.
No, Lisa, I think you misunderstand me. I spoke nowhere about Columbia "openly supporting" brutal tyranny or animal abuse in their labs. As Bruce said, that although Columbia declined to have a meeting with PETA, the vet in question was fired and the accusations were found to be true. The indictments made national news, and I'm sure Columbia was already thoroughly embarrassed by the incidents as they stood. No university, especially one with a history like Columbia wants to have things like that associated with their venerable name.
Columbia did not "openly support" Ahmadinejad, rather, they hosted a controversial, albeit hateful, speaker and provided a forum where protest was expected and in fact welcome- in fact the president of Columbia's introduction to the speech was anything but warmly accepting; far from open "support." Ahmadinejad, although brutal, is an international force, and an interesting one, and he is worthy of study.
And if one wanted to address the accused veterinarians, the place to do it is in a press release or printed medium such as this- not in front of the graduates who had worked hard for four years, and their proudly beaming families on that once in a lifetime day. I respect Mr. Friedrich's right to openly denounce and bemoan the horrors and perpetrators at Columbia. But I also think that his surprise at this dis-invitation is unwarranted when his history with this institution is taken into consideration.
And no, I didn't receive any rejection letters regarding my university education and I didn't apply to any yet.
I do think it's understandable, as one can see from a few of the comments where people are supporting them. I did something that upset them, and now they can get me back. But I think that the decision does not stand up in the light of their own mandate and commitment to the free exchange of ideas. It's petty, and it's beneath them. That's the point of my post.