The next time you're surfing YouTube, take a look at the footage from Oct. 4 at Columbia University as protesters drowned out the speech of Jim Gilchrist.
Gilchrist is the founder of the Minuteman Project that favors strict application of illegal immigration laws and proposes building fences on U.S. borders to keep illegal immigrants out. Screaming protesters appeared on stage with banners and prevented Gilchrist from finishing his speech. Violent mayhem ensued, and accusations of physical assault immediately flew from both sides. It was a sorry, sorry sight.
What is most depressing is the hypocrisy of these two sides, both of which claim to be defending all that makes The United States great. The Minutemen, on their website, warn that the nation may be ""devoured and plundered by the menace of tens of millions of invading illegal aliens."" They claim simply to advocate enforcing immigration laws, but what they represent is xenophobia and, some would argue, latent racism.
If successful, their efforts to wall off the country could turn the United States from ""the land of the free"" into a new version of pre-1989 East Berlin.
The protesters, on the other hand, portray themselves as advocates of real American values: tolerance and openness to different cultures. But they seem to forget that the right to free speech is also an inviolable American value.
Instead of listening to Gilchrist and then shooting down his arguments with withering logic and rhetorical skill, they cut off his right to free speech and engaged in a childish display that likely did not convince any undecided people of their point of view and may indeed have pushed several into the other camp.
Though they may not realize it now, this event is a catastrophe for pro-diversity forces. The national debate over immigration is just beginning, and most Americans have yet to make up their minds on how they feel about it.
If the Columbia protesters had simply assailed Gilchrist with tough questions during a question and answer session, or confronted him afterward, the event would have been just a local campus news story. But by rushing up on stage and cutting him off, they made it onto the national news.
Perhaps they were counting on the political science axiom: ""To be perceived at all is to be perceived favorably."" But that doctrine has exceptions, one if your name is Mark Foley and another if you sacrifice an intelligent debate on the issues for a brief moment of impudent, rebellious glory.
Their actions beg the question: Do these protesters want to convince undecided people that their position on immigration is the correct one, or do they just want a rush from feeling like they've rocked the system?
Immigration is a complex issue. The United States does not have the resources simply to throw open the borders to anyone and everyone who wants to come. But neither should this nation of immigrants slam that door shut and throw out everyone who has slipped in.
People who come in search of a better life should not be treated as though they are common criminals, especially if they have children born in this country. But if the government looks the other way every time someone comes in illegally, no one would come in legally.
Both sides have arguments, and both deserve to be heard. But both should have the maturity and restraint to engage in a civilized discussion of the issues without resorting to screaming at one another.
Perhaps the Ivy Leaguers at Columbia should take note of UW-Madison's official credo, that ""the great state University of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone truth can be found.""
The Minutemen have plenty of points through which to sift and winnow, and if the protesters had taken a little more time to do that instead of shouting them down, they might have garnered a few more supporters. But instead, all they have done is damaged the pro-immigrant cause and given college students a bad name.
