A Different Path

This post will probably be of interest mainly to my Barnard and Columbia colleagues, and perhaps others working in or writing about American higher education. Those who have read my earlier posts on a minority report, the storm ahead, and the golden goose will find little here that is new.

The post reproduces (with minor edits and footnotes and links added) remarks that were written ahead of a Barnard faculty caucus meeting on March 6, and read out at the event. This was before the cancellation of 400 million dollars in grants and contracts to Columbia was announced, and before a prominent public figure called for the closure of Barnard.¹

The emergency meeting was called in the wake of the protest activity, bomb threat, and arrests of the previous day.

---

We are currently facing significant threats from multiple directions, and I think it’s worth keeping these in mind as we decide on what course of action to take.

First and foremost, all branches of the federal government are now in the hands of people who view American higher education in general, and Columbia in particular, as a mortal enemy. They would be perfectly happy to see Barnard and Columbia destroyed to set an example for others.

The cuts to NIH indirect costs are just an opening salvo. The freezing of all federal grants is coming next, then partial confiscation of endowments via litigation, pressure on curricula via the accreditation process, and targeted denial of visas to foreign students.²

Second, we are in the crosshairs of organized labor, especially the Transport Workers Union that represents our public safety officers. In a recent letter, Local 264 President Joseph Rose is reported to have said that “the union has argued for years that Barnard needed to create standard operating procedures, emergency operating procedures, and rules of engagement.” The statement by the union referencing this letter has some really harsh words for the College.

Third, our standing in the eyes of the general public has fallen precipitously. According to data from Gallup, the percentage of respondents expressing high confidence in American higher education fell from 57% to 36% over the eight-year period from 2015 to 2023. Meanwhile, those with little or no confidence rose from 42% to 62%. The decline in confidence was greatest among Republicans but also present among Democrats and Independents. These shifts preceded the October 7 attacks, the war in Gaza, and the subsequent protest activity on campus.

I think we need to keep these things in mind as we decide how to respond to the recent events on campus.

I believe that if we put our heads together, we can come up with a set of concrete proposals that could meet with widespread approval from our community, broadly defined to include current and former students as well as faculty, staff, senior administrators, and trustees. But to do this we have to adopt a constructive rather than adversarial posture towards the senior administration, and have a clear-eyed view of the multiple threats we’re facing to our survival as an institution.

For over a year now, the posture of the Barnard faculty towards the president and some senior staff has been openly hostile. I think it’s a mistake to continue along this path.

On the 22nd of April last year, the Barnard chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) issued a vote of no confidence in the president. This was by a vote of 102 to zero. There are two ways to interpret such an extraordinary level of conformity. One possibility is that the behavior of the president was so obviously and egregiously wrong that no reasonable objection could be made to a no-confidence motion. Another is that those who had reservations about this action were reluctant to express them, for perfectly understandable reasons—to preserve their standing in the community, and to protect their careers for example.

The AAUP vote was followed by a faculty caucus vote on the resolution, which passed by 98 to one. The entire faculty then voted and the motion passed with 228 in favor, 56 opposed, and 12 abstaining.

This is just an example. Every faculty meeting I’ve attended over the past year and a half has involved very sharp criticisms of the president and some senior staff. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to be made, and we can keep acting in this way, but I don’t think this will help us get out of the terrible situation that we’re facing.

Instead, we could try to come up with a set of concrete proposals in a spirit of constructive engagement that speaks to the concerns of all members of the community, including public safety officers. These proposals need to provide answers to the following questions, and to include dissenting voices where we don’t have consensus.

• What should be the “standard operating procedures, emergency operating procedures, and rules of engagement” that we communicate to our public safety officers? How should they respond to a class disruption, or the occupation of a building that prevents normal functioning of the College? Who should decide whether normal functioning has indeed been disrupted, and on what basis? What protocols should be followed if there is a credible bomb threat?

• How should the disciplinary process be organized to address violations of college rules? One idea that has emerged recently the reconstitution of the Judicial Council. If this is done, how can we ensure that its decisions are accepted by the community at large? By what process should members be chosen in order to facilitate trust? Will appointment by the Faculty Governance and Procedures committee and the Student Government Association accomplish this? If not, how can a broadly trusted council be assembled?³

My biggest worry right now is that we will continue along the path we’ve been following for the past year and a half, and that we end up lurching from one crisis to the next even as the looming threats get ever larger and ever closer. We have an opportunity and a responsibility to help the College get through this really difficult period, but I think that it will require constructive engagement and persuasion rather than continued confrontation.

The Torch Bearer (Photo by Carrie Glasser)

1. There are credible reports that the grants and contracts initially slated for cancellation amounted to three billion dollars.

2. There were almost 14,000 international students enrolled at Columbia last Fall, and they contribute a disproportionate share of tuition revenue. Barnard is also much more dependent on international students than we used to be.

3. There may exist no procedure that results in a council that is willing to impose significant sanctions on those who violate rules. According to one analysis, Columbia’s “disciplinary history is marred by repeated failures, driven by the inherent social and political dynamics within academic circles. Few without other agendas want to be involved with these processes. Students are reluctant to punish their peers, and faculty often avoid disciplining students due to fear of social ostracism.”