The International Socialist Organization is not the trendiest student group on Columbia University's campus.

"They're crazy," said Rushin Desai, a Columbia College senior.

"It's a cult. It's a total cult," said Liane Aronchick, a Barnard freshman and ex I.S.O. member.

"I didn't become a socialist to become popular," said Melanie Clark, CC junior and I.S.O. member since September 1997.

Clark's sentiment is dead on: belonging to the I.S.O. will not make you popular around here. If you ask, Columbia students will call the I.S.O. everything from a cult to a terrorist cell, accuse I.S.O. members of hypocrisy and over-sensationalization, and dismiss the organization without another thought.

Yet, from the sexual misconduct policy to Matthew Shepard's murder, the I.S.O. is consistently on the front lines of student activism with a large chunk of the University community, the chunk that considers itself liberal, solidly behind it. So why doesn't the I.S.O. get any respect?

Between the phantom I.S.O. that lives in rumor and the real group of revolutionaries, the Columbia community must have missed something. But searching for the true character of the I.S.O. raises more questions than it answers.

The Meeting
The Morningside Heights branch of the I.S.O. meets every week on a basketball court in the basement of Broadway Presbyterian Church at Broadway and 114th Street at 7:30 on Thursday nights. In folding chairs set up just shy of half court, about 25 people gathered on February 17 to hear a speech on "The Communist Party's Fight Against Racism in the 1930s." I.S.O. members, some waving copies of the I.S.O. newspaper Socialist Worker, lined the sidewalk outside the church door, enthusiastically hailing everyone who came within range. Inside the church, down a flight of stairs, small groups gathered amidst the folding chairs until the chairman called the meeting to order.

About half of the people at the meeting that night appeared to be undergraduates. The remainder did not seem to be students. Of the 25, two people were apparently black, three others were South Asian or Latino, and the rest were white.

It was difficult to tell the card carrying I.S.O. members from the merely curious, but intuition said that most of the people there were not at their first I.S.O. meeting.

The dress code was "activist casual" (i.e. worn out sweatshirts). The chairman, who had a heavy Irish accent, looked to be in his early thirties. After he began the meeting with a short introduction another branch member gave the feature presentation.

The speech went on for about 40 minutes, with the speaker rhythmically shifting his weight from foot to foot making repetitive circles with his hands. Apparently he had read one or two books on the communist party during the Depression, and he basically summarized them, inserting I.S.O. jargon like "the glorious Bolshevik revolution" where appropriate. From time to time someone sitting in the back row of chairs would remind him to speak up.

In the midst of the presentation, a woman came in late carrying a grande Starbucks beverage. It was never clear whether she was an I.S.O. member or not.

After the speaker finished, there was an hour and a half of discussion. Right away, the Starbucks patron, who was black, criticized the 1930s-era communists and implicitly the I.S.O. for not understanding black nationalism. I.S.O. members responded. The tone of the discussion was polite, but intense.

At the end of the meeting, a branch member gave the 'Branch Update', which included information about upcoming I.S.O. events like the anticipated Diallo demonstration, and a 'Branch Hang-Out' at V&T Pizza later in the week.

Throughout the meeting, I.S.O. members appeared highly aware of what non I.S.O. members at the meeting, potential I.S.O. recruits, were doing. When a handful of people from the audience tried to sneak out early, an I.S.O. member gave chase. She caught up with them before they made it out the door, and asked what they thought of the presentation. After a little chit chat, she said, "So, have you thought about joining?" It began to seem like there was an element of desperation to the I.S.O. friendliness. Ex I.S.O. member Liane Aronchick would agree.

The Ex Revolutionary
Liane Aronchick went to her first I.S.O. meeting in late October of 1999. She went to her last three months later. What happened in between was, to hear Aronchick tell it, a disturbing experience with group pressure.

Aronchick recounted her days as a comrade in an interview on February 15. At her first meeting I.S.O. members were "obsequious," she said.

"They're even nicer if you're not a member. They come up to you and introduce themselves and say, 'You should join'."

Once she came on board, Aronchick began receiving three to four phone calls a week from I.S.O. members asking her to help sell the Socialist Worker or to post flyers. She also got calls reminding her to attend meetings and demonstrations. Besides the phone calls, Aronchick was frequently asked to contribute financially: monthly dues were $20 "or whatever you can pay", she said, and she was also encouraged to buy books and pamphlets published by the National I.S.O.

But what bothered her, Aronchick said, was the pressure she felt to change the way she thought. For the duration of a 20 long I.S.O. organized bus ride from New York to a demonstration in Georgia the comrade sitting next to Aronchick tried to convince her that voting is useless.

"He wouldn't let go until I agreed," Aronchick said. "He would ask other people to join the argument on his side until I gave in. He said 'I get the feeling you're not agreeing with us."

"They probe you," Aronchick said. "You couldn't have a friendly argument."

Aronchick's misgivings finally came to a head over the I.S.O.'s belief that government of the United States must be overthrown and socialism established through a violent revolution.

"I don't agree with violence, but they would say 'what other option is there?'"

Increasingly, the I.S.O.'s position on violence troubled Aronchick. After she had a particularly heated argument about violence with another I.S.O. member, an I.S.O. higher-up, who was not a Columbia student, was called in to talk to her.

"He called me up and said, 'I'm sensing some resistance from you.' He told me to come to the weekly meeting and antagonize the issue. Anytime I tried not to do something, they'd keep talking until I agreed to do it."

Finally, Aronchick decided enough was enough and quit the I.S.O.

"It was really hard to leave. I felt guilty for leaving. But once I quit, it was like a 1,000 pound weight was lifted from my shoulders. They're always pressuring you. There's always another fight. If you have the slightest deviation of thought, they try to talk you out of it."

The Revolutionary
What Aronchick calls brainwashing, Melanie Clark depicts as an educational process: "I disagreed with things when I joined: a long process of argument and experience on the ground changed my mind."

Clark is in a hurry to change the world. She expects the socialist revolution to occur within the next ten years. I spoke with her on February 19 about the I.S.O.'s doctrine, Aronchick's experience, and her own beliefs. Clark peppered our conversation with examples of injustice that were happening as we spoke and large numbers, like millions starving, or two million rotting in United States prisons, to. She seemed infused with urgency.

Aronchick's accusation that the I.S.O. is a cult did not seem to upset Clark particularily, perhaps because the word 'cult' is so ill defined. Clark aparently took it to mean 'a highly devoted group of people': "I'm a revolutionary all the time," she responded. She admitted that many I.S.O. members grow emotionally close to one another, and that the I.S.O. demands a substantial time commitment from its student members. She took exception, however, to the notion that the group tries to shape the way members think.

"Its not about 'thought police'. We have hundreds of thousands of arguments every year- its not that we agree all the time, but we act together even when we disagree."

But, Clark seemed to have a hard time understanding how an I.S.O. member could disagree with something as basic as the need for violence.

"These things are proven to me. 900 million people go to bed hungry every night. That's a violent act to starve people. It will take violence to end that."

Clark emphasized the self defense part of the I.S.O.'s plan to use violence. "We're not pacifists," she admitted, "but not being a pacifist does not mean that you are a terrorist, or an anarchist. We do not do random bombing, we are not like the Weathermen. That kind of random violence is far less productive than non violence."

Violent revolution, according to the I.S.O., will occur when the majority of the people get fed up with the oppression capitalism subjects them to. This majority will move to overthrow the ruling class, and the ruling class will fight back. It will be necessary for the long-suffering majority to take up arms in its own defense.

Clark put it succinctly: "If I think it's the critical moment, I will take a gun and shoot someone- someone who was about to shoot me."

A little less obvious, but still visible beneath the surface of I.S.O. dogma is the old notion that violence cleanses and creates like nothing else can. Clark summed it up nicely: "Revolution is a creative process."

Clark did not comment on the potential discrepancy between cultivating violence for its creative capacity and being driven to violence out of self defense. Overall, she struck a careful balance on violence questions throughout our interview. For the most part, she was able to be a realistic revolutionary without sounding like a bloodthirsty fanatic. When asked if the I.S.O. conducts combat training trains for its members, she laughed.

"We're not lunatics."

I pressed her about it: what if the revolution was coming next month, wouldn't it behoove the I.S.O. to teach its comrades to fire a gun?

"There are people training for us right now," Clark said. "We expect the support of the army. The vast majority of the army is working class." Does Clark really advocate a bloody revolution but not expect to have to prepare for it herself? Perhaps she is not really serious about using violent means, or perhaps she was toning her ideology down a bit for prime time.

The Proletariat versus Mom and Dad
I have always wondered what will happen to middle class parents, such as the parents of some I.S.O. members, when the revolution comes. When I was a freshman living in Carman hall, someone scratched an I.S.O. slogan about the approaching revolution into the wall next to the service elevator. Someone scrawled back something like "When the revolution comes, your parents will be in the first ones to get shot."

I asked Clark what the revolutionaries will do to middle class parents, using my Mom and Dad as examples. The question seemed to throw her off.

"Would your parents be sympathetic to the revolution?"

"Uhm, no."

When she heard that they would be unrepentant bourgeoisie to the end, Clark was nice enough not to rhetorically throw my parents to the howling mob in front of me. She changed track instead, explaining that, "redistribution is about producing new wealth and giving it to the people who make it."

But before she could put safe distance between herself and the parents question, Clark could not help but conclude, out loud, that my parents are selfish. Her statements elsewhere revealed a harder line: things like, "counter revolutionaries will be taken seriously for a while after the revolution," and "if they're not on our side, they'll be prosecuted."

If Melanie Clark is indicative at all, the International Socialists are very frank with themselves about the need for violence, frank enough to politely admit to a reporter that her parents will be mowed down by the revolution. It is difficult to see how anyone who was reluctant to take up arms could join the I.S.O.

And the Authorities·.?
The I.S.O.'s advocacy of revolutionary violence and overthrow of the government will not get them in trouble with the Columbia administration any time soon. Raffaella Coelho, Vice President of the ABC, said that the International Socialists are free to advocate whatever they please so long as they are not breaking the law.

"If they were doing something illegal, the administration would step in," said Coelho. "The whole point of student groups is to be able to do stuff without the administration's oversight."

Assistant Director of Student Development and Activities Robyn Hartman said that student groups must conform to University regulations for student behavior. If the I.S.O. went beyond advocacy and started, say, stockpiling weapons, Hartman said, "My guess is there would be grounds to pretty easily derecognize them." Once derecognized, the I.S.O. would no longer receive funds from Columbia.

And if the I.S.O. is a cult? Belonging to or founding a cult is not illegal, and it is not against University regulations. Pressuring fellow students to accept violence as a means for change is not against University regulations.

Many Columbia students are not ready to talk about bloody overthrow of the government, no matter how liberal they are. Lacking members, the I.S.O. resorts to intense pressure to keep those it has. In the end, the I.S.O. remains a tiny fringe group with a reputation for extremity. The I.S.O. itself is not in a hurry to change this state of affairs.