Connect with us

All Articles

Moodygate in the NYT: Making the Headlines, Missing the Point

"Look ma, A16!!"

As many tipsters have pointed out, Columbia was on the front page of the New York Times site (in print on A16) this morning. The second Times article about the recent resignations of Dean Moody-Adams and Provost Steele says things you probably already know: that faculty are dissatisfied, and that it had nothing to do with racism.

Still, the reporter, Alan Schwarz, seems determined to project a race narrative. He bookends the article with the supporting views of two professors, even though all relevant parties deny any racial factor. While associate J-School prof June Cross claims “I’m not saying race is the issue, but it is the subtext [in the two resignations],” former Provost Claude Steele says that it was not a factor in his decision to leave: “If I were in the shoes of the faculty member I would have the same concern…but this had nothing to do with my identity or the provost’s office,” he explains. Moody-Adams declined to comment for the article.

Of note is the contribution of Professor Andrew Delbanco, Director of the Center for American studies (the NYT for some reason undersells him as “an American studies professor,” even though he’s a big deal and is one of Bwog’s favorite contributors to the NYRB but anyway), on some of the bigger picture stuff we’ve been trying to tackle:

“Columbia has a top-down management structure that discourages informed discussion by faculty of such basic questions as how to keep the college open to students from low-income families, what’s the right mix of students from the United States and abroad, and how to keep the college small enough so that students have real contact with their professors.”

He added, “I’m hoping for open and fruitful discussion of such matters, but Dean Moody-Adams’s resignation is a reason to temper hope with caution.”

Schwarz also squeezed a vague and unsatisfying quote from PrezBo, who promises: “I will meet with faculty and talk with them about this … I completely understand why people would feel concerned. So talking internally is extremely important.”

Yes, talking internally is important. But it still remains unclear, incredibly frustratingly so, who’s going to be allowed to take part in this conversation. Here’s a hint though, it’s not going to be students.

Over the coming semester, Bwog will be firmly committed to the issue of undergraduate education at Columbia and its place within the university. We encourage you to talk to your professors as well as your friends. And of course, to us:

Leave a Reply to Interesting Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.



  • It says:

    @It won’t be most alumni either.

  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous Dear lord, is that really what the NYTimes website looks like without AdBlock?

  • Interesting says:

    @Interesting Seems like there good be quality reporting coming up from bwog

  • Have Your Say

    What should Bwog's new tagline be?

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

    Popular This Week

    Sorry. No data so far.

    Recent Comments

    Friedman labeled the Public Safety Dept as “racist” for the incident of April 2019. Good riddance!! (read more)
    Dean Natalie Friedman To Leave Barnard
    May 27, 2020
    Ah, yes. Cornell University. Ah, yes yes. Such wonderful trees. You have done it again, BOGW. (read more)
    How To Relive Columbia Arbor Day At Home
    May 27, 2020
    Can you prove that (read more)
    Fake It Till You Make It
    May 25, 2020
    And after she was treated soooo well by Barnard too ;) Lucky POSSE. (read more)
    Dean Natalie Friedman To Leave Barnard
    May 25, 2020

    Comment Policy

    The purpose of Bwog’s comment section is to facilitate honest and open discussion between members of the Columbia community. We encourage commenters to take advantage of—without abusing—the opportunity to engage in anonymous critical dialogue with other community members. A comment may be moderated if it contains:
    • A slur—defined as a pejorative derogatory phrase—based on ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, ability, or spiritual belief
    • Hate speech
    • Unauthorized use of a person’s identity
    • Personal information about an individual
    • Baseless personal attacks on specific individuals
    • Spam or self-promotion
    • Copyright infringement
    • Libel