|
DylanRowlingFirstEssay 3 - 22 May 2025 - Main.DylanRowling
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Operation Open Up: Reinstituting Freedom of Movement on Morningside Campus | >
> | -- By DylanRowling - 20 Feb 2025; Revised May 21 2025 | | | | |
>
> | “So the people shouted, and the priests blew the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, that the people shouted with a great shout, and the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city.”
— Joshua 6:20 (ASV) | | | | |
<
< | -- By DylanRowling - 20 Feb 2025 | >
> | Operation Open Up: Reclaiming Freedom of Movement at Morningside | | | | |
>
> | For over a year, Columbia University’s Morningside Campus has remained in an artificial state of lockdown. College Walk, once a public artery connecting Broadway and Amsterdam, now stands behind metal barricades and security tents. Hired guards demand identification at the gates. The University’s public-facing spaces, designed to symbolize openness and inquiry, are walled off from the very city they once embraced. | | | | |
<
< | What is closed? What is “closed”? | >
> | This is not merely a logistical inconvenience. It is a violation of a fundamental civil liberty: the right to free movement in public spaces. The American legal tradition, from the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV onward, has protected the basic freedom of citizens to move and assemble without arbitrary barriers. Columbia, by its own public mission and private statutes, was never meant to be a fortress. Its closure is not just an overcorrection to protest; it is a breach of trust with the University’s community and the public it purports to serve. | | | | |
<
< | 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. | >
> | The closure reflects a deeper retreat from principle. Carved into the stone of Low Memorial Library are the words “For the Advancement of the Public Good.” That public good is not advanced by suspicion and exclusion. Every day the gates remain closed, Columbia betrays its commitment to academic freedom, civic engagement, and the free exchange of ideas. | | | | |
<
< | 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 the Gates Remain Closed | | | | |
<
< | Why do we want to reopen? | >
> | The administration faces a repressor’s paradox: lifting restrictions would invite protest, but maintaining them breeds disillusionment and instability. Federal hostility toward Columbia, particularly in the aftermath of last spring’s protests, has reinforced repression over reform. But repression is not a permanent strategy. Pressure will build until it bursts. | | | | |
<
< | 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. | >
> | Where Authority Lies | | | | |
<
< | 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. | >
> | Appeals to interim leadership are misplaced. Interim presidents are tasked with preserving the status quo, not enacting reform. Meaningful change must come from the University Senate, a body composed of students, faculty, and administrators empowered to oversee educational policy and university life. The Senate can compel change. It can act, if we demand it. | | | | |
<
< | 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. | >
> | Evidence of Evasion | | | | |
<
< | 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? | >
> | At a recent Town Hall, I asked for a reopening plan. Administrators cited "student sentiment" and fears about ICE to justify continued security. This justification is not only incoherent, it is unserious. Private guards cannot stop federal agents. No real plan was presented thereafter. It is transparent that security measures will quietly loosen when students leave for the summer and return when they come back. There is no plan to restore freedom, only a plan to manage appearances and federal scrutiny. | | | | |
<
< | 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 Law is On Our Side | | | | |
<
< | 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. | >
> | The right to free movement is a foundational American liberty. In Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, the Supreme Court struck down vague vagrancy laws, reaffirming that the freedom to walk, assemble, and wander without unjust interference is part of the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. | | | | |
>
> | Columbia is not immune from these obligations. In Marsh v. Alabama, the Court held that a privately incorporated town could not infringe constitutional rights because it performed traditional public functions. By operating open spaces and integrating into the civic life of New York City, Columbia has long performed a public function. | | | | |
<
< | What is the solution? | >
> | Anticipating Objections | | | | |
<
< | 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. | >
> | Some may cite Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, which upheld a mall’s right to bar protest, to argue that Columbia can close its campus. But Columbia is not a mall. It is not a commercial space but a civic one, historically open to the public and functionally embedded in city life. Like the company town in Marsh, it performs public functions. Under the doctrine of estoppel by representation, institutions that present themselves as public stewards cannot disavow that status when it becomes inconvenient. | | | | |
<
< | 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. | >
> | Others may argue this is not a First Amendment matter at all. That is true. It is a Fourteenth Amendment matter. It is about freedom of movement, not just freedom of speech. It is about the ability to cross space without surveillance or suspicion. And it is about the nature of institutions that claim to serve the public. | | | | |
>
> | Columbia cannot interminably shield its actions behind security concerns. The justifications offered, such as deterring federal agencies like ICE, do not withstand scrutiny. The real issue is protest. The administration fears unrest, and someone will eventually be blamed for it. An interim president is the perfect lightning rod: temporary, expendable, and positioned to absorb the fallout from lifting restrictions that a permanent successor might hesitate to confront. | | | | |
<
< | Who has the keys to the lock? | >
> | Conclusion: Priests, Blow Your Trumpets | | | | |
<
< | There are three classifications of people who could influence the reopening of our Morningside Campus: 1) Students, 2) Faculty, and 3) The interim president. | >
> | Recent dialogue between students and faculty has laid a necessary foundation. Faculty have affirmed, in a public letter, the centrality of free movement, free expression, and due process to Columbia’s mission. Students have responded respectfully but firmly, calling for these principles to be translated into action. | | | | |
<
< | Students | >
> | We are now engaged in dialogue. It is time to offer a clear and legally sound step forward. Drawing on foundational American liberties and rooted in Columbia’s own public commitments, we can demand a tangible first act of redress: reopening Morningside. This step would honor the faculty’s April 22 affirmation #6 of students’ right to move freely across campus. | | | | |
<
< | 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. | >
> | Restoring freedom of movement is not radical. It is a modest reaffirmation of the values Columbia professes to serve. It would honor the spirit of our recent exchanges, move beyond platitudes, and begin to heal the breach between principle and practice that has opened over the past year. | | | | |
<
< | 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.
I don't quite understand the draft. Not the idea that the current police state is unacceptable, which I feel as strongly as you, but the remarkably indirect forms of argument.
- Freedom to move about the campus unsurveilled and uncontrolled is a fundamental civil liberty. Why do you discuss "upper west side greenspace" and the cost of rental cops (as seen from a non-existent "endowment office") but not the fundamental rights concern?
- The university is governed by an elected Senate, which could order the campus gates reopened tomorrow, or which could hold hearings to embarrass the shit-paunched bureaucrats who have closed it until they start respecting our rights. Why don't you mention the Senate, the university statutes, or any actual rules of government?
- Closure was intended to prevent protest, which is also a basic right. The employees at will who are continuing the situation are caught in the repressor's paradox: if they lift restrictions, protest will ensue that will publicly embarrass them and demonstrate their weakness. But if they don't, the pressure will build up underneath their repression. The hostility of the federal government to the university demands repression from them, so they are acceding. But eventually the pressure will overturn their measures, more messily than if they had withdrawn gracefully. You do not analyze or even descrribe this aspect of the situation.
- No, Lady Shafik was not dislodged for her failure to listen to students. You have no sources to cite for that conclusion, and I do not think it represents the historical reality. The actual story of her flight last summer has not yet been told, and I do not see any prospect of its surfacing soon.
- The closure persists because it is unresisted.
You can make the draft better by making it clearer on any or all of these points. Then it might be worth asking what you should do rather than what you should say. Have you spoken to the law school senators? Have you written the unqualified former TV news personality who is temporarily cosplaying the president? You will receive a chatbot response, but that would be worth writing up, would it not?
| >
> | The law, the history, and the University’s own words are on our side. The only question is whether those with authority will act. | | | | |
>
> | The gates must open, and it falls to us as students, faculty, and citizens to ensure that they do. | | |
|
|
|
DylanRowlingFirstEssay 2 - 21 Apr 2025 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Operation Open Up: Reinstituting Freedom of Movement on Morningside Campus | >
> | Operation Open Up: Reinstituting Freedom of Movement on Morningside Campus | | |
-- By DylanRowling - 20 Feb 2025 | | | Listen to students and listen to students. That is the solution, and that will allow us to reopen. | |
>
> |
I don't quite understand the draft. Not the idea that the current police state is unacceptable, which I feel as strongly as you, but the remarkably indirect forms of argument.
- Freedom to move about the campus unsurveilled and uncontrolled is a fundamental civil liberty. Why do you discuss "upper west side greenspace" and the cost of rental cops (as seen from a non-existent "endowment office") but not the fundamental rights concern?
- The university is governed by an elected Senate, which could order the campus gates reopened tomorrow, or which could hold hearings to embarrass the shit-paunched bureaucrats who have closed it until they start respecting our rights. Why don't you mention the Senate, the university statutes, or any actual rules of government?
- Closure was intended to prevent protest, which is also a basic right. The employees at will who are continuing the situation are caught in the repressor's paradox: if they lift restrictions, protest will ensue that will publicly embarrass them and demonstrate their weakness. But if they don't, the pressure will build up underneath their repression. The hostility of the federal government to the university demands repression from them, so they are acceding. But eventually the pressure will overturn their measures, more messily than if they had withdrawn gracefully. You do not analyze or even descrribe this aspect of the situation.
- No, Lady Shafik was not dislodged for her failure to listen to students. You have no sources to cite for that conclusion, and I do not think it represents the historical reality. The actual story of her flight last summer has not yet been told, and I do not see any prospect of its surfacing soon.
- The closure persists because it is unresisted.
You can make the draft better by making it clearer on any or all of these points. Then it might be worth asking what you should do rather than what you should say. Have you spoken to the law school senators? Have you written the unqualified former TV news personality who is temporarily cosplaying the president? You will receive a chatbot response, but that would be worth writing up, would it not?
| | |
|
|
|
DylanRowlingFirstEssay 1 - 20 Feb 2025 - Main.DylanRowling
|
|
>
> |
| 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. |
|
|