Time drags on, and Columbia University’s “investigation” of the violent acts to prevent anti-illegal-immigration speakers from being heard on campus looks increasingly like a “cover-up” – as New York Post editors opine.

But even this increasingly dubious “investigation” might be interpreted as a tiny step forward.

A few years back – in the fall of 1999 – I vividly recall being unceremoniously kicked off campus with Ward Connerly, who masterminded affirmative-action-referenda in two states, higher education critic Dinesh D’Souza, columnist John Leo, and two other speakers. The reason given by the administration was concern for our safety, in the wake of verbal threats from campus members accusing us of racism and threatening the takeover of the university facility in which we were to have spoken.

Over the loud and incessant protests of a configuration of organized brownshirts, in the same mold as those who recently ejected the immigration speakers from the podium, we proceeded to deliver our remarks in a public park adjacent to the university.

There was no “investigation,” no apologies, no invitation to return to campus for an honest and university-protected debate.

Leo concluded – and so far the same holds true today at Columbia:

This is mainstream opinion on campus these days: you show distaste for intellectual opponents by blocking speeches and stealing newspapers, not by debating with them. Freedom of speech has no value…The modern university happily complies.Columbia’s action—using safety concerns to squelch unwanted speech—is a sophisticated version of the heckler’s veto. Great universities don’t behave this way. If Columbia wants to retrieve its honor, it should make sure that the conservative speakers are invited back. If it doesn’t, the lesson is clear: unpopular speakers can be driven off campus—with administration connivance.