"On behalf of President Rupp and myself, I am responding to the request of the Columbia College Student Council for a statement of the administration's position in the campus discussion surrounding Professor Edward Said. I have been reluctant to do so until now because it seems to me--as it did at its inception--that the values held dear at Columbia were well known and unambiguous and did not need reaffirmation. Nonetheless, I will do so because from time to time it is appropriate to reiterate the fundamental principles on which the life of any great university depends and this may be one of those times.

The rights and protections afforded faculty members are stated in Section 70 of the University Statutes--that portion that discusses ''academic freedom'' at Columbia:

''Academic freedom implies that all officers of instruction are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subjects; that they are entitled to freedom in research and in the publication of its results; and that they may not be penalized by the University for expressions of opinion or associations in their private or civic capacity; but they should bear in mind the special obligations arising from their position in the academic community.'' [The Faculty Handbook, Columbia University, 2000, p. 184]

Professor Said's actions, as well as those of other members of the faculty, are protected by these principles of academic freedom. We do not believe in a speech code at Columbia, nor shall we act as a speech police. As for the now famous picture of Professor Said's pitching a stone across a border: to my knowledge, the stone was directed at no one; no law was broken; no indictment was made; no criminal or civil action has been taken against Professor Said. We have hearsay evidence and a set of assertions that have been denied by Professor Said in his own statement of the facts. Whether we believe or not that Professor Said was engaged in protected ''expressions of opinion and association,'' the University should not intervene. Had Professor Said been indicted in another nation or our own it still might not be appropriate to punish him under University conduct rules. In short, the University might not take action against the speech or behavior of a member of the faculty even if it were the focus of civil or criminal litigation. The circumstances would govern the response. The same could be true for our students.

If this current episode were in fact about throwing a stone across a border that apparently did not threaten anyone, we might leave it at that. But this discussion is really about something more basic to the University's fabric than the tossing of a stone since, it seems to me, if it were not for Professor Said's well-known political views this would not have become a matter of heated and on-going debate. This matter cuts to the heart of what are fundamental values at a great University.

There is nothing more fundamental to a university than the protection of the free discourse of individuals who should feel free to express their views without fear of the chilling effect of a politically dominant ideology. John Stuart Mill in his wonderful essay, On Liberty, eloquently discusses why it is so important to the concept of liberty for us to support the expression of unpopular ideas that may offend or appear to threaten one's own views:

''If all of mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind…'' [On Liberty, Chapter II, p. 23 of the Robson edition of John Stuart Mill: A Selection of His Works]

Ideas expressed through public speech in or outside the classroom that may seem repugnant to us, ideas that offend our concept of ''truth,'' that may challenge our biases and presuppositions, need to be protected unless they threaten the basic fabric of order in our scholarly community.

Therefore, the recent campus discussion surrounding Professor Edward Said should not disturb us unless that discussion includes calls for fettering the free exchange of ideas or for sanctioning Professor Said. The very thought of limiting the free speech of Professor Said or his critics, however unpopular each position may be to its opponents, would produce a threat to us all and to academic freedom. Such restraints on the views of our faculty could have long-lasting negative consequences for a revered feature of this University: its tolerance for what the majority may feel are opprobrious thoughts. We at Columbia did not yield--as did other institutions--to the pressure and impulse to sanction or fire professors who held unpopular political views during the McCarthy period; we will not back down from our protection of the faculty's right to express itself now.

As for whether Professor Said occupies a protected position because he is a University professor, the answer is ''no.'' No special treatment is afforded University professors in terms of their rights to academic freedom. Each of our faculty members has the same protections, no more, no less, than Professor Said. Edward Said is a University Professor because he is a giant in his field of scholarship; he has created an entire field of work. There are courses given at other universities and books published on the work and thought of Edward Said. His students and friends populate distinguished positions in virtually every major university in the world. He is one of the foremost and influential humanists and intellectuals in the world. He was named a Columbia University Professor, our highest academic title, solely based on the quality of his scholarly and teaching contributions. To have some question the value of his work and the appropriateness of his recognition at Columbia because they differ with his political views, is to lose sight of why we honor Edward Said as one of Columbia's leading scholars. The recent discussion, with a few even suggesting that Professor Said be dismissed from his position here, has reaffirmed my belief that there remains real value in the original intention of academic tenure. If we are to deny Professor Said the protection to write and speak freely, whose speech will next be suppressed and who will be the inquisitor who determines who should have a right to speak his or her mind without fear of retribution?

There are policies governing behavior at Columbia where faculty and students are treated differently. However, in matters of academic freedom involving free speech there are few protections that are offered one that are not offered the other. Were allegations made against a student similar to those lodged against Professor Said--with the same limited evidence as to intent or consequence as is apparently available in the Said case, I would work to protect the student's rights to freedom of expression and action. I would not believe that it was a matter that required University disciplinary action of any kind. Students and faculty have the right to do many things that I may think are not the right things to do, but I would never exercise the authority of the University to assure a consistent set of views to match views of those who may for the moment occupy positions of power.

Jonathan R. Cole

Provost and Dean of Faculties

Columbia University

October 18, 2000"