Controversy took hold of Low Library last night during the last of four speeches on Columbia history, given by professor of history Robert McCaughey. A small group of striking Columbia graduate students stood at the entrance to Low Library, holding signs while handing out buttons and fliers. The students, met with both sympathy and annoyance, explained to attendees that they had asked to have the event moved off-campus as part of their strike, a request that the University had ignored.

The resulting tension set the tone for the rest of the evening, which drew varied input from panelists and audience members about the events of both 1968 and 2004. McCaughey discussed the student-led takeover of the University in 1968 in the final installment in the Our Past Engaged series, planned as part of Columbia's 250th anniversary celebration. The lecture was organized by McCaughey, author of Stand, Columbia: A History of Columbia University in the City of New York, 1754-2004.

As visitors steadily arrived, the striking students informed attendees of their goals. David Carpio, a graduate of GSAS and staff member of the Graduate Student Union, explained, "We're asking all faculty members and organizations that are hosting conferences and events to honor the picket line and move them off campus."

"We felt that this was a particularly symbolic event given that it's about the student activities of '68," added Carpio.

Maida Rosenthal, president of the Local 2110 union, which is representing the graduate students, also drew a parallel to 1968. "Protests did not end in '68," she said, continuing that the University "has only become more corporate" since that time.

When asked about the reasons for picketing the event, she said, "We don't think our allies should be forced to cross picket lines to attend an event such as this."

As the beginning of the event drew near, the picketing students walked into the rotunda and sat down on the steps leading up to the dais where the panelists sat, drawing sounds of disapproval from one irate audience member.

At that point an attendee began speaking into one of the microphones set up for the question-and-answer session scheduled for after the presentation, expressing support for the striking students. The power to his microphone was quickly cut off as the event began. The picketers remained silent for the duration of the speeches.

McCaughey's speech was followed by responses from three other panelists. These were Lewis Cole, CC '68 and professor of film at Columbia's School of the Arts, William Theodore de Bary, CC '41, GSAS '53, and professor emeritus of history at Columbia College, and Jacqueline Russo, CC '04, who is studying history in her final year at the College. The panel was moderated by Eric Foner, Columbia College professor of history.

McCaughey began by defending what some have called the disproportionate amount of space in his book devoted to the 1968 protests, pointing out their importance as the "most extensively reported campus story in American history."

He described the now-familiar story of 1968 briefly and then began to delve further into Columbia's history. The first part of his speech focused on Columbia's gradual move from King's College, an institution associated with the English crown, to what he characterized as the more liberal institution of today.

He spoke about the University's temporary closure during the Revolutionary War, and how during World War II, Columbia was regarded as beholden to the interests of reactionary trustees. Finally, McCaughey returned to the protests of 1968, an event he placed in context as one of a string of wartime transformations of the University.

Throughout his speech, McCaughey stressed the importance of undergraduates as dissenters, organizers, reporters, and rebuilders in the process of reinvention, especially in 1968. He discussed at length the often strained relations between students and faculty, recounting how faculty members had struggled to find their places amidst what was often violent change.

McCaughey ended his speech by speaking about the nature of Columbia students, now and throughout history, emphasizing their lack of traditional college spirit, their often disaffected stance, their varied backgrounds, and their academic aspirations--all factors that fueled the atmosphere of 1968.

The first response came from Cole, a student participant in the 1968 protests. Cole stressed the importance of what he experienced, saying, "There was not a distinction for me between what I learned at Columbia and what I did at Columbia."

He spoke briefly about the Vietnam War's profound effect on the thinking of his generation, which compelled him and others to take principled stances on the issues and often to distance themselves radically from society at large. He ended his response with an expression of support for the picketers, which drew applause mixed with scattered disapproval.

De Bary, a leading faculty member during the protests, followed with a message emphasizing calmness and courtesy. He recounted his far-left upbringing and his gradual conversion to slightly more moderate views during World War II. He also told the story of how protesting students in 1968 tried to prevent his daughter from visiting him. DeBary concluded his short response with an aphorism of Confucius that encourages scholars to exercise civility and tranquility.

Russo, the last of the respondents, brought the perspective of today's Columbia students to the discussion. She cited recent activism on campus, from protests against racism to the graduate student strike, to students' questioning of the Manhattanville expansion, as evidence that the tradition of 1968 is still alive at Columbia.

She also stressed the importance of student government, which did not exist during the 1960s, in promoting healthy dialogue between students and the administration. She said that although there are still problems in student-to-administrator communication, the University has come a long way.

Foner then opened the panel to questions from the audience. Most of these took the form of alumni relating their own roles in the protests, though one questioner criticized the student body of Columbia today for its self-satisfaction and apathy, saying of the quiet picketers, "It bothers me to see students sitting here like window dressing."

The striking students did make themselves heard once more, when one of them accused the panel of hypocrisy for ignoring today's student activists at an event devoted to student activism. But Foner cut him short, saying "This is not a captive audience."