|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
Operation Open Up: Reinstituting Freedom of Movement on Morningside Campus
-- By DylanRowling - 20 Feb 2025
What is closed? What is “closed”?
Since April 30th, 2024, public access to our Morningside Campus has been severely curtailed. In response to the now-infamous pro-Palestinian (and anti-Columbia) demonstrations, valid Columbia identification must be presented to since-hired security for campus access. The beautiful stretch of cobblestone bookended by Broadway and Amsterdam, known as College Walk, is presently marred by tents of huddled rent-a-cops.
What this really means is that the Upper West Side is being deprived of one of its crown jewels. City blocks of open green space, in a place where green space is at a significant premium, are inaccessible except to the highly privileged. Carved into the frieze of the Low Memorial Library are the words “FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE PUBLIC GOOD.” The irony of the ethos of this University, etched in stone, viewable only with the right documentation, is difficult to overstate.
Why do we want to reopen?
This impediment cannot continue in perpetuity. We have a vested interest in the community. Beyond the city itself, we have a vested interest in the academic community at large. A “border wall” sends the wrong message to our physical and intellectual coterie.
It would be dishonest to claim there is no one we wish to keep out, just as it would be dishonest to deny that prestige and exclusivity play a role in why we are here. But that is not an honest analogy, either. Intellectually, we strive to let in the best. Physically, we should want only to keep out the worst. Restrictions to campus blur the lines between the former and the latter, between which there should be many, many lines. We cannot greet our students and faculty with such suspicion.
We cannot treat the community with such suspicion, either. Every building requires identification for access already. That is fine–there are resource constraints that are perhaps best addressed in this manner. The classrooms are not in danger, although demonstrations do disrupt academic pursuits. It is true that the overwhelming majority (dare I say the entirety) of the threat that we seek to mitigate lies outside our classrooms. That is also the cohort most impacted by these checkpoints.
The monetary cost of security is surely not inexpensive. Behind closed doors, I can imagine the endowment office poring over a spreadsheet, calculating the cost-benefit analysis down to the dollar. Perhaps the added security does not present grave financial hardship, and the University could physically afford to maintain the expense as long as needed. How long is needed?
The end of the conflict that compelled the demonstrations will not mark the end of the threat of occupation from outside demonstrators over the next social cause. Hamilton Hall was a contemporaneous target in no small part due to the significance it played in the 1968 anti-Vietnam war protests. This is not new. It gets in the news. The heightened sensationalization is correlated with the University’s prominence. I like that our school is good. But as long as it is, it will be subject to malice from outsiders.
The fallout from April’s protests was nothing new, either. An over-policed response to the protests led to the resignation of former University President Grayson Kirk in 1968. Fool me once… perhaps we need a better solution? That solution is not bilateral malice.
What is the solution?
Responsiveness. The presence of hired security is evidently an effective deterrent to unwanted guests. It repels wanted and neutral guests all the same. If we can agree that we should reintegrate into the community, then a measured solution is required. There should not be an abdication of security. The presence of security inside the campus, on the main lawn, could and should be sufficient to detect malfeasance and respond quickly if necessary. This presence would be a good idea to be kept and maintained. As previously stated, there will be another demonstration. Security with eyes on the ground will afford our University an expedient response, if the campus needs to be temporarily locked down in the future. Because it will.
Former President Shafik did not resign due to a mishandled response to the occupation. She was ousted for being out of touch with her student body. Not in the sense of the specific politics of their whims, but in the sense of the whims themselves. Leadership’s job, especially in the context of babysitting college students, is knowing which way the wind is blowing in case there are some hatches that need to be battened. Everything that resulted two semesters ago was downwind of a faulty barometer.
Who has the keys to the lock?
There are three classifications of people who could influence the reopening of our Morningside Campus: 1) Students, 2) Faculty, and 3) The interim president.
Students
Many students do not know what they are missing and therefore do not feel the loss. There is also great personal risk in doing more than writing an opinion piece. I do not think students would be effective here, despite being a large beneficiary of the effort.
Faculty
Faculty are perhaps a more effective avenue than students. I am not going to pretend to be privy to the inner machinations of the university’s politics. There may be groups or levers I am unaware of working behind the scenes, so I will respectfully take the stance that if faculty is motivated to reopen, I will believe it when I see it.
Our Interim President
Dr. Armstrong is perhaps best positioned to effectuate this return to status quo. This is tenuous, however, because an interim president by definition is not a status quo position. Surely there is an interest there in removing the “interim” from her title. As far as students are concerned, being the figurehead to inherit the ship in a storm and navigate us back to port would be revered.
Listen to students and listen to students. That is the solution, and that will allow us to reopen.
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. |
|