April 24, 1968. At 5:30 a.m., over 200 student radicals broke into Low Library and stormed the president's office. By 8:30 a.m., all but 30 or so students vacated the space. Those who remained intended to hold captive Columbia's seat of administrative power and prestige until their extremist demands were met. That evening, however, an amalgam of loosely affiliated campus organizations developed the Majority Coalition, based on a collection of over 2,000 signatures that petitioned the administration to reclaim the University from the militant protesters and oppose "direct action." The Majority Coalition pressed administrators and faculty alike to act in order to return a sense of normalcy to Columbia. The Ad Hoc Faculty Group quickly yielded to the Coalition and promised to take proactive measures to abbreviate the protesters' occupation of Low. The ultimate failure of the group to act, however, drove the Majority Coalition to mobilize.

For some 30 hours, from 5 p.m. on April 28 to 11 p.m. on April 29, the members of the Majority Coalition, standing shoulder to shoulder, clad in their suits and light-blue armbands, maintained an unwavering cordon around Low Library. Attempts to pass food, water, and supplies to the protesters (or "pukes," as they referred to themselves) inside were intercepted by Coalition members. When the administration refused to act, the Coalition took it upon itself to lay siege to the vandals. As Columbia and Morningside Heights fell to radical upheaval, these students, who history too often forgets, placed their corporeal selves between the mobs of anarchists and the lifeblood-the home-of the administration.

While individual politics and opinions have been lost to history, the Majority Coalition's actions must endure. Few, we must consider, stood in complete opposition to the protesters' demands; most, as one could infer from the political dynamic of the time, sympathized with certain policy changes advocated by the "pukes" or supported their critiques of the Vietnam War. All, however, stood resolute in support of civility. While the Majority Coalition has long since dissolved, that respectable student majority has not.

The great majority of Columbians are truly deserving of the monikers "liberal" and "open-minded." They both appreciate and understand the need for debate and civil discourse, and while they may disagree with your point, they understand the value in hearing it presented. There is, however, a sizable portion of radical activists who also call the Columbia "left" their home. They have torn down signs of protest at the Finkelstein event, ripped apart College Republican banners at the annual Columbus Day barbecue, harassed minority students for being so "ignorant" as to join the "racist" military, stormed stages, assaulted speakers, and marched proudly in front of military veterans while celebrating Iranian and North Korean missile programs. Traditionally, their actions are so repugnant that one need not ask for a public condemnation-it was tacitly assumed. Yet, when these radicals join with more mainstream organizations and spread their credo of direct action, calls for their censure are sporadic and few. While the clear majority disapproves of their actions, it remains largely silent.

Columbia, here and now, needs a new Majority Coalition to stand for civility and open discourse. For regardless of good intent, it is wholly irresponsible to remove all blame from Columbia as an institution. Such wanton displays of disrespect, hate, and political intolerance towards those "right of center" are fostered in this progressive environment. When Fahrenheit 9/11 is shown in a Civil Engineering class, because conservative faculty members are nonexistent and the department is overtly politicized, we must ask ourselves: "Are Columbians truly prepared to respond to individuals and ideas that challenge their status quo?" Over the past decade, both student organizations and student populations have asked that same question, choosing to fight institutional wrongs. Today's College Republicans and conservatives are no exception; so long as they value the education over the degree, they will continue to challenge the rampant bias and complete absence of ideological diversity. This struggle, however, requires civility; it requires a new Majority Coalition.

The Columbia Republicans consider themselves an organization for their Republican peers on the Columbia campus, not the mere extension of the national party. All invited speakers-from the Minutemen to professor James Russell, CC '74-and events, including campaigning with Senator Joe Lieberman, were proposed to the executive board by club members. While some events take over a year to bring to fruition, the executive board does not waver in its commitment to members. Thus, attempts to establish some tautology between speakers and the opinions of the club as a whole are both misguided and offensive. Rather than debating the issues, opponents resort to ad hominems and sweeping generalizations.

Should we, as the majority, wish to rid ourselves of this incivility, we must accept-yes, accept-one oft-repeated recommendation: "Professors, too, could address these controversial national issues." It is ironic, however, that these great proponents of scholarly discourse place the onus on a student group, and not the administration or individual departments, to provide the conservative academics. Until we realize that long-term institutional change requires not just a guest lecturer but a concerted effort by the majority to introduce intellectual diversity and promote civil discourse, nothing will change.