Minuteman Project founder Jim Gilchrist confirmed Thursday night that he might be returning to campus at the request of the Columbia University College Republicans, even though he believes that “First Amendment freedoms are deliberately suppressed” at schools like Columbia.
“I’ve been in touch with them [CUCR], and they have given me an overture of interest but no formal invitation,” Gilchrist said in an interview.
The Minuteman Project has come under fire for its vigilante strategy for stopping illegal immigration, in which volunteers monitor the U.S.-Mexico border and report individuals who attempt to cross illegally. Former President George W. Bush once said he opposed the project because he was “for enforcing the law in a rational way,” and the Southern Law Poverty Center has described it as a “nativist extremist” group, meaning it targets “individual immigrants rather than immigration policies.”
The group describes itself as “a citizens’ vigilance operation monitoring immigration, business, and government.”
Gilchrist last appeared on campus in 2006, also at the request of CUCR, in an event that ended in a rowdy brawl when protesters stormed the stage.
At that event, Gilchrist discussed his views on immigration. Gilchrist said he is not sure what CUCR will want him to discuss if he returns, noting that, “I don’t know if the audience wants to hear about immigration, why I’m so passionate about law enforcement advocacy.”
“My organization is not anti-immigration,” he said. “There is a misconception that we are the largest racist fascist group in America.”
CUCR President William Prasifka, CC ’12, told Spectator on Wednesday that the purpose of the event—which could take place this semester—would be “to discuss academic freedom and the freedom of the University.”
Gilchrist said he “would be glad to combine these topics [immigration and free speech] into one.”
“Overwhelmingly, free speech on the campus environment has been compromised by indoctrination,” he said.
But whatever Gilchrist discusses, it’s possible some students will protest.
“I don’t see the point of wanting to bring this cruel individual back,” Latino Heritage Month committee chair Maria Lantigua, CC ’12, said in an email. “I would understand if there was the possibility of having a fruitful conversation, however, I don’t think that is possible.”
Gilchrist’s last appearance on campus sparked the formation of the activist group Lucha, which more than five years later is a prominent campus group. Rudi Batzell, CC ’09 and a founding member of Lucha who protested Gilchrist’s 2006 speech, said that it seemed like CUCR invited him back to generate attention.
“I think they want to create a spectacle and draw attention to themselves,” he said. “Jim Gilchrist has no meaningful ideas to put forward—he has hateful ideas and hateful speech, and has no constructive place in campus discourse.”
Gilchrist expects that if he comes back to Columbia, he will get a quieter reception than he did last time.
“I expect next time will be less rabble-rousing and more interest in listening with mature debate and questioning,” he said.
However, he added, “I don’t know whether that is going to happen. It depends on Columbia students’ belief in free speech.”
Batzell said that while freedom of speech is important, students should also exercise their right to protest.
“I believe in free speech—I think open and vigorous discourse is important,” he said. “Free speech is also about protest and demonstration, and it’s important to realize that Columbia student demonstrators are exercising their right to free speech instead of suppressing that message.”
Gilchrist, though, said the 2006 incident “violated the very core of this country,” and that he was “offended to see something like that happen at a university that’s supposed to be renowned for the free expression of ideas.”
“They should have listened to me, not interrupted, and then hit me with some real hard questions emphatically in the end,” he said, later adding, “What they did backfired against them.”
Gilchrist said that he does not expect people to agree with him.
“I am not saying that what I say is right,” he said. “All I do is bring my ideas forth and I expect people to vehemently agree or disagree with what I say. But I have a need to force the debate on the immigration issue.”
Jeremy Budd contributed reporting.
COMMENTS
Comments will be moderated in accordance with our comment policy