Thank God for Columbia. Every year that campus blesses us with a major scandal — but this early in the year? Twice? It’s like Christmas before Halloween!

In the latest development of the Minuteman fallout, two Columbia students crossed swords on The O’Reilly Factor tonight. In one corner: Chris Kulawik ‘08, Columbia Conservative Club president, Spectator columnist, right-wing firebrand with boy-band good looks. In the other: Avi Zenilman ‘07, Blue and White editor, brainy ubermensch with, uh, David Brooks good looks.

Kulawik won the coin toss (which on O’Reilly’s show tends to land dickheads up) and got the first question. O’Reilly asked him if he felt personally threatened since the event. Kulawik, to his credit, was pretty level-headed in noting that threats “were out there” but had received none personally.

Zenilman tried to frame the protest as “an isolated incident in terms of a breakdown in the conversation.” O’Reilly shot back that on a “Kool-Aid campus” like Columbia, this kind of stuff is expected. He is “convinced there’s a left-wing jihad” afoot — that nothing like this would ever happen with a liberal speaker.

The biggest slam of the night went to Columbia president Lee Bollinger, who O’Reilly called a punk for not showing up to defend the university’s free speech climate himself. At least he’s consistent. On the Oct. 5 edition of the Factor, O’Reilly said Bollinger was “hiding under his desk, as he always does” — and then noted 25 words later that he himself, who once gave a talk at Columbia, didn’t have the “courage” to return there.

(Full disclosure: We know Avi, and worked with him at one point. We may still have a turtleneck of his we borrowed once.)

UPDATE 10:53 p.m.: President Bollinger sent out a school-wide e-mail today, calling the Minuteman disruption “one of the most serious breaches of academic faith that can occur in a university such as ours.” Finally, Bollinger and O’Reilly can agree on something. Read his e-mail in full after the jump.

UPDATE 11:52 a.m. Saturday: Here’s the video. Having watched again, we thought we should toughen this up a bit. Avi definitely got floored on a couple questions — notably the one where O’Reilly asked him if he knew the J-school was 100 percent liberal, and Avi just said nothing. He joins the ranks of the 99 percent of other not-conservative guests on the show who mostly get bulldozed.

Bollinger’s Letter

Dear fellow members of the Columbia community,

Columbia University has always been, and will always be, a place where students and faculty engage directly with important public issues. We are justifiably proud of the traditions here of intellectual inquiry and vigorous debate. The disruption on Wednesday night that resulted in the termination of an event organized by the Columbia College Republicans in Lerner Hall represents, in my judgment, one of the most serious breaches of academic faith that can occur in a university such as ours.

Of course, the University is thoroughly investigating the incident, and it is critically important not to prejudge the outcome of that inquiry with respect to individuals. But, as we made clear in our University statements on both Wednesday night and Thursday, we must speak out to deplore a disruption that threatens the central principle to which we are institutionally dedicated, namely to respect the rights of others to express their views.

This is not complicated: Students and faculty have rights to invite speakers to the campus. Others have rights to hear them. Those who wish to protest have rights to do so. No one, however, shall have the right or the power to use the cover of protest to silence speakers. This is a sacrosanct and inviolable principle.

It is unacceptable to seek to deprive another person of his or her right of expression through actions such as taking a stage and interrupting a speech. We rightly have a visceral rejection of this behavior, because we all sense how easy it is to slide from our collective commitment to the hard work of intellectual confrontation to the easy path of physical brutishness. When the latter happens, we know instinctively we are all threatened.

We have extensive University policies governing the actions of members of this community with respect to free speech and the conduct of campus events. Administrators began identifying those involved in the incident as it transpired and continue to investigate specific violations of University policies to ensure full accountability by those found to be responsible.

University personnel are also evaluating event management practices that are specifically intended to help event organizers, participants, and protestors maintain a safe environment in which to engage in meaningful and sometimes contentious debate across the spectrum of academic and political issues. These are some of the many steps we intend to take in the weeks ahead to address this matter in our community.

Let me reaffirm: In a society committed to free speech, there will inevitably be times when speakers use words that anger, provoke, and even cause pain. Then, more than ever, we are called on to maintain our courage to confront bad words with better words. That is the hallmark of a university and of our democratic society. It is also one of our central safeguards against the impulses of intolerance that always threaten to engulf our commitment to proper respect for every person.

Sincerely,

Lee C. Bollinger