Campus politics
By Rebekah Mays
This year, writers for Opinion tackled the two topics that could revolutionize our University’s bureaucratic system—the squabble over the academic calendar and the elections for student councils.
Regarding the first issue, Rajat Roy, Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein, and columnist Mark Hay all called for increased transparency in the inner workings of the University Senate and the administration. In a very different perspective on the same issue, Adam Sieff argued that we should defer to the faculty’s wishes to begin our school year after Labor Day rather than whining about the calendar.
Student senators, noting the “stalemate” between students and administration, weighed in as well, writing of the first steps toward an academic calendar that pleases everyone while also calling for students to be willing to compromise, just as they have demanded of the administration.
Meanwhile, writers also contributed to the dialogue about student council elections.
Amin Ghadimi put forth his philosophy about the troubles of such campus democracy. Spectator’s editorial board endorsed Stand Columbia for the Columbia College Student Council Executive Board and offered its congratulations to Learned Foote and the rest of Stand Columbia when they were indeed elected.
So, are we on the road to a more perfect University? Next school year will tell.
The author is a Barnard College sophomore majoring in English. She is a Spectator editorial page associate.
Manhattanville
By Paula Gergen
It’s been a crazy year for Columbia’s Manhattanville expansion. Right when the plan seemed to be solidifying, the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division declared the use of eminent domain for the project illegal last December. In June, the New York State Court of Appeals will take up the issue, meaning Columbia students have had much to debate in the interim. Ben Totushek and Tom Reed argue that the Appellate Division’s decision to deny Columbia the use of eminent domain in Manhattanville is good for both the University and the community, and that we should celebrate not having to belong to “an institution that runs roughshod over the Constitution.” Kate O’Gorman calls for a re-examination of the issue of expansion so that Columbia’s need for space is satisfied in an ethical manner, while John David Fernandez argues the libertarian viewpoint, citing John Locke’s theories of private property. Samuel Roth points out the similarities between Columbia’s need for expansion today and the need for space 100 years ago while recalling the devotion of John B. Pine to the University.
The author is a Columbia College sophomore majoring in East Asian languages and cultures. She is a Spectator editorial page associate.
Campus culture clash
Last semester, after Rajat Roy wrote a column asserting that too much money is given to cultural groups on campus, op-eds and letters poured in describing the importance of open organizations dedicated to cultural diversity on campus.
One of the most hotly debated topics on the editorial page this semester was the Israel-Palestine conflict. During “Israeli Apartheid Week,” otherwise known as “Peace Week,” many articles discussed the persecution of the Palestinians, while others wrote of the difficulty of the Israeli position. Students fought for their opinions to be heard, and this struggle is evident in the division that exists not only in Israel, but also on campus among different groups.
The Chicano Caucus and AEPi wrote of reconciling Cinco de Mayo parties with cultural sensitivities. The Chicano Caucus originally wrote of the offensive nature of a Facebook invitation, but later collaborated with AEPi on an op-ed that discussed the importance of coming together to resolve cultural tensions.
The past year highlights how many of the religious and cultural affiliations on campus are unable to accept one another and constantly augment the controversies seen in the world around us.
The author is a first-year in Barnard College. She is a Spectator editorial page associate.
Dining
By Sarah Ahmed
Students had a plateful to say as rapid and fundamental changes occurred to both the Columbia and Barnard dining plans. Amy Chen expressed optimism for Barnard’s new mandatory meal plan policy, explaining the benefits of having the Diana Center as an alternative to Hewitt Dining Hall and Java City, while also offering a unique perspective on how the Diana’s cafés reinforced Barnard’s goal of building community. Maria Lantigua brought attention to Columbia’s dining policy by challenging the restrictions on John Jay’s take-out option, calling for greater ease in taking out food in containers, proposing an all-you-can-eat system akin to that of nearby restaurants, and urging the administration to clarify the take-out policy. More recently, the editorial board argued that the revised dining plan would break down first-year traditions, taking away the idea of late-night runs to JJ’s and—because meals will be purchased by the week and not by the semester—putting an end to the end-of-semester race to use up remaining meals. This, the board felt, will eliminate the forced-yet-poignant bonding experience that comes with having to eat only at John Jay. In the end, students sought more options in dining, called for greater communication with the administration, and looked to old (and new) dining traditions to strengthen the Columbia-Barnard community.
The author is a Columbia College sophomore majoring in neuroscience and behavior. She is a Spectator editorial page associate.
Housing
Questions of where we live, how we live, and who we live with have been raised across the University all year, and student concerns, commentaries, and criticisms followed suit on the opinion page. In “Making room for room inspections,” Mary Chenoe Hart urged Barnard students to recognize that room inspections are for everyone’s well-being and safety, while also reminding RAs to exercise courtesy in this process. The second semester brought heated debate on gender-neutral housing. In March, Janelle Batta made a case for the necessity of gender-neutral housing and decried the deans for halting the progression of this movement on the Columbia side of Broadway in “Perspectives on gender-neutral housing at Barnard.” In a similar vein, Isadora Cerullo argued that we should redefine housing as gender identities are redefined in “Rethinking true equality.”
But official University policies weren’t the only hot housing topics. Back in November, Aliko Carter touched on a lighter subject in his assessment of “elevator etiquette” in the dorms. In “Perspectives from a bottom dweller,” Carter argued that all students have the right to the ride the elevator—even to go only three flights. The themes of equality and respect—be it for mixed-gender roommates, RAs, students with contraband, or that kid that wants to ride the Carman elevator to the fourth floor—have pervaded the ongoing discussions of CU housing rules since September.
The author is a first-year in Barnard College. She is a Spectator editorial page associate.
COMMENTS
Comments will be moderated in accordance with our comment policy