Response to the Tuition Strike: Five Demands is Too Many
Students walk on Low Plaza. Photo by Tony Jin.
At first glance, the demands outlined in the Tuition Strike Demands Letter may seem commendable, but upon closer examination, it becomes clear that several of the demands in the letter are contradictory, misleading, or performative.
The letter strings together a litany of complex issues that each deserve their own attention. Many students who support alleviating the economic burden of high tuition also believe that the other demands require further review or their own resolutions. Lumping together five distinct issues in one letter forces students to ascribe to a handful of political stances with which they may not necessarily agree. Instead, the letter presents Columbia students with a preposterous binary: subscribe to the Young Democratic Socialists of America’s political agenda or put practical financial solutions to high tuition demands at risk. In practice, this serves as a chilling effect to students who have concerns about tuition but do not ascribe to all of YDSA’s political ideologies.
The most controversial aspect of the demands letter is found in Section 4, with regard to Columbia’s investments. Conspicuously, the authors of the letter attempted to gloss over their inclusion of Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) from Israeli companies by deceptively re-casting Columbia University Apartheid Divest’s (CUAD) contentious campaign as divestment from “companies involved in human rights violations.” One need not look further than the website hyperlinked in Section 4(b) to know that this line item is specifically about divesting from companies in Israel. It is deceitful and erroneous to include an item about a complex international geopolitical issue in a letter about a tuition strike. Moreover, this section has no practical bearing, as President Bollinger has reiterated on several occasions that the university would not change its investment policies on the basis of particular views about a controversial policy issue.
Sadly, the discrepancies and lack of transparency do not stop at the letter’s language. The Columbia College Student Council Executive Board gave the council a mere 24 hours to vote on the letter after seeing it for the first time during a CCSC meeting on Sunday, December 13. During the meeting, there was no time allotted for public comment despite the fact that many council members were unfamiliar with many of the multilayered issues raised in the letter. Furthermore, requiring council members to vote on several pervasive issues within 24 hours at the umpteenth hour of this tumultuous semester undermines council members’ ability to thoroughly consider the possible implications for the students they represent. After a series of complaints, it was extended to the 29th. However, the public is not allowed to comment and there will not be another meeting for more information. This is a disgrace to the Columbia College community.
When faced with the same vote, the General Studies Student Council made the wise decision to form a subcommittee tasked with examining each issue individually and returning to their council with more information before voting. CCSC should follow suit and vote on each individual section, without conflating the issues. Columbia students deserve a thorough review process before their elected student representatives vote on this high-stakes agenda.
Romy Ronen is a junior studying Film and Media Studies at Columbia’s School of General Studies and Jewish Literature at the Jewish Theological Seminary.
Adi Mayer is a sophomore studying Political Science with a minor in Economics at Barnard College.
This article was submitted to CPR as a pitch. To write a response, or to submit a pitch of your own, we invite you to use the pitch form on our website.