Rarely does that last 3 a.m. check of the inbox reveal anything of importance. The night of Sept. 21, however, proved to be an exception. There I found a plethora of angry, confused, and outraged e-mails. On a few hours' notice, the Columbia community had moved to act-in less than 24 hours, Iranian "President" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was scheduled to stand in Low Rotunda as an invited guest of the administration. Well accustomed to Columbia's antics, my response has become second nature. That very night, with hopes of an early confirmation, I submitted a protest/space request on behalf of the College Republicans.

Early the following afternoon, I discovered that our advisors in SGB, the Student Governing Board for all groups religious and political, had declined our protest request. The standard cut-and-paste denial reads: "We are unable to approve this space request because it was submitted without sufficient notice. This event requires an Event Review." This was established policy embodied, a policy built on a logical premise. Certain events require advanced notice to allow for cooperation and discussion between the students and the wonderful folks of the lower administration (from advisors to security) who dedicate themselves to bringing these events to fruition.

There is, of course, an inherent problem when Columbia applies cookie-cutter administrative policy universally. With literally one day's notice from the administration, what right do they have to punish student groups for their "late" requests and applications? So long as the administration can abuse such loopholes, they, by their own accepted standards, can invite any speaker and avoid on-campus protest. Campus groups can't skirt controversy as well as their administration. Worse, even for authorized events, student groups must incur the costs associated for heightened security should they wish to brave controversy and protests. Groups on both the political left and right have found this a hard institutional truth to cope with. In all future revisions to Columbia's administrative policy, common sense must prevail: Columbia must distinguish between their usual regulations and the spirit of free and open speech they purport to champion. Regrettably, we must question this commitment to open discussion.

Recently I discovered that the Columbia administration accepted the protest request from the pro-Israel, pro-peace campus organization, LionPAC (submitted under the auspices of Hillel, one of SGB largest organizations), while outright denying the Republican protest. An e-mail, of which I have obtained a copy, has Lerner Hall officials giving a final confirmation to the LionPAC protest/space request-a step only permitted after a definitive "OK" from their advising office.

Why was one group accepted and another denied? Was the LionPAC reservation for Low Steps, with hundreds of incensed individuals only steps from a loathsome "world leader," classified as less of a security threat than the same College Republican protest? Were policies bent for one group and not another? There are a number of possible explanations, but I will not speculate until the administration finally replies to my numerous requests for a written statement and definitive citation of University policy. Either way, the irony of University President Bollinger teaching a class entitled Freedom of Speech and Press steadily grows with each passing semester.

Anyone familiar with Columbia's record, however, would realize that this was not my first denied protest. Nearly a year ago to the day, former columnist Dennis Schmelzer covered an attempt by my Columbia College Conservatives to protest University Invitee Hugo Chavez, Venezuelan strongman. In his deliciously pun riddled article, "How Far Can You Go Against Hugo?" not only does Dennis affirm Columbia's affinity for legitimizing tyrannical despots, he cites clear similarities in administration stonewalling of protests:

"...to get permission to demonstrate at the Sundial for a 'level 3' event [review] on campus, a student group must reserve the space a week ahead of time". Conveniently, for the Chavez event, notice was only posted on the World Leaders Forum Web site on Sept. 13, more than a week after most other speakers were listed and just three days before the event. So much for the week-long notice for the protest."

Sound familiar? It should.

Every effort taken by the administration to promulgate such exceptionalism to shelter the likes of Chavez and Ahmadinejad is a violation of both student rights and Columbia's long established ideals. Had fate (and a bumbling bureaucracy) not intervened and both tyrants spoken as honored University Guests, what then? Would CU security have followed orders to remove and punish students who participated in those "unauthorized" protests? The simple realization that the University could justify such censorship is truly frightening. More important, why have these flawed policies gone so long unchallenged? Had the University invited President Bush (laughable indeed) and given "one day's notice" as grounds for denied protests, the outcry would be unprecedented.

Sadly, with policies like these, nobody wins-except the dictators.