Connect with us

All Articles

Disgruntled CUCR Members List Their Grievances

No comment.

No comment.

As our Founding Fathers noted in the Declaration of Independence: Let Facts be submitted to a candid world! That’s what members of CUCR say they are trying to do. But first, here are some other facts:

  • Members of CUCR were going to present a list of grievances at the meeting of their board (new and old) regarding last week’s allegedly unfair elections tonight at 10 pm.
  • Kate Christensen, current president, postponed the meeting (where new board members are sworn in) two hours before it was supposed to be held.
  • Board members then noted the SGB policy that mandates new members be sworn in during the academic year, which a Tuesday or Wednesday meeting, as she had proposed, would violate.
  • Meeting was, soon after, a go.
  • Meeting was, soon after, postponed again, as the current board claims there have been threats of violence made against the incoming president.
  • General members themselves are in an atmosphere of fear, as they worry about repercussions from Columbia, Eyvana is threatening to bring in Fox News (and members allege her family has flown in to New York because of this), and individuals feel their membership is at risk

Below is the list of grievances signed by three members of the Board of Directors and 12 general members. They note that the “conduct of the election was in contravention to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution” and largely reaffirm claims from our original post regarding stacking of voters, unclear eligibility rules, and a rigged questioning period. They call for a new election, “with the restriction of voters having been to two meetings attended throughout the year.”

Signatories note they have heard threats made to critics, and that “the outgoing leadership has worked to ‘shut down’ those who have contacted the board about the conduct of the election.” To the statement by Eyvana Bengochea (incoming president) that accused the original post of being racist and sexist, they claim it “seems to portend ill for future confrontation.”

What the members of CUCR were going to submit to the board (imagine much fancier formatting in the original):

WE, the undersigned directors and members of the general body of the Columbia University College Republicans, issue this statement of grievance concerning the election held on Wednesday April 30, 2014, and the officials therein elected.

We feel that the conduct of the election was in contravention to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution of the CUCR, and, more importantly, we feel it was conducted in a manner that was in contravention to the general democratic principle.

In the detailed explication of grievances following this statement, we find, to the best of our ability to do so, that the qualifications for voting, in past elections, were successfully defined as being solely restricted to the members of the general body who have attended two or more meetings. We have evidence that this is supported by the Operations Manual, which defines the qualifications in the same manner as was explained to the general body in the days preceding the elections.

In the lead-up to the election we have been told of explicit statements made by members of the outgoing board questioning their character and urging them not to run. Furthermore, we have evidence that supports wide-scale “stacking” of voters that is in clear contravention to the spirit of the constitution. It is agreed amongst the signatories that instances of voters having to be told of which events they “attended” were observed. We also query the qualifications of several of these voters even under these relaxed standards, and that not all persons of questionable qualification had their eligibility ascertained.

We have also had signatories testify that there was clear coordination in the questioning period in order to target particular candidates, which suggests collaboration between the beneficiary(ies) of said targeting and the coordinators thereof. We also note that the outgoing president took to the floor to issue a condemnatory statement towards a candidate at this questioning period.

In the following days we have seen what can be termed a campaign of intimidation and the creation of a fearful atmosphere. Signatories have been told that their ability to remain members of this organisation is at risk if they were to engage in criticism. We have been told by members of the outgoing leadership, despite nominally expressing a willingness to entertain complaints, have adopted a stance of dismissal and denigration of such views. The newly elected President took to campus media to condemn critics as being racist and sexist, and we condemn this statement, official or not, in the strongest terms.

We regard the CUCR as an arena for people who share our core values to express their opinions, to make them heard, and to feel that their views shall be listened to and accepted. We do not feel that, in light of recent events, that our views have been accurately heard, nor do we feel that the CUCR, after these events, can be a safe place to express our views without the threat of condemnation from the top.

As a result, we request that, with the authorisation of the Student Governing Board, new elections, with the restriction of voters having been to two meetings attended throughout the year, be held before the end of the academic term for certain positions held to be in question and that members of the board who are considered as committed acts in contempt of the spirit of the constitution and the general principle of honesty and openness be made to answer the questions of members in an open, public forum.

It is our hope, with good will and a desire for honesty and openness we can finally place these legitimate concerns to rest, endow legitimacy on the Board of Directors, and achieve reconciliation with disaffected members. It is known that all members wish to move past this controversy, but we firmly believe this shall be impossible without an honest and forthright remedy.

We understand that these are extraordinary circumstances, but we believe that with the broad support we have achieved that our statement is truly indicative of the disposition of the majority of this organisation. Perhaps in other organisations similar sentiments would have gone unheeded, but, as our outgoing President Kate Christensen said, we have a responsibility to hold ourselves to a higher standard.

Detail of Grievances

We, the above signed, have contributed to this detailed account, but we recognise not all signatories may agree with everything stated below; it is to be taken as the aggregate recollection of events and not a binding account. We find that our grievances are divided in all periods surrounding the election—in the days preceding it, in its conduct, and its aftermath. Thus we have divided this statement into sections clarifying when the issues or events mentioned occurred.

Prelude to the Election

In the days before the election, emails were sent that stated, explicitly, that in order to be eligible to vote voters must have attended two or more general body meetings, and that “Parties and co-sponsored events with other groups do not count.” We have been told that this is language supposedly taken from the group’s operations manual (for reasons unknown kept confidential). Despite the constitution taking the broader language of “events,” we believe that the constitution allows for the more restrictive definition to hold applicable, where it is written that “The final interpreter of the meaning of the Constitution of the Columbia University College Republicans is the Executive Board.” This has been the conduct followed in previous elections; on April 22, 2013, then-Communications Director Sharin Khander wrote an email saying that “in order to be eligible to vote, you must have attended a minimum of 2 general body meetings this year.” (Emphasis original).

This statement would allow the Board to clarify and tighten the provisions of the constitution as they saw fit. Under such an understanding, the requirements of the Operations Manual would mandate that elections must be conducted under the “two-general-body-meeting” principle. This alone is grounds for dismissing the results of Wednesday’s election and holding a re-vote.

We are told that one candidate was also personally told by the President to not run for a position next year. We find this to be in contradiction of the principle of the CUCR’s mission to “recognise the diversity of its members and encourage dialogue and discussion among its membership” and, more critically, the general principle of fairness.

According to a voter who was present at the election, Andy Truelove contacted people from his church group to attend parties, and he noted that Andy said that he had a spreadsheet with names on them and attended parties. According to Ben Sweetwood, Eyvana Bengochea made statements critical of Kate Christensen’s leadership.

Conduct of the Election

According to the aforementioned source, said that Andy instructed them to vote for candidates, and that their group came from Andy’s church group and other people. He expressed concern over his qualifications to voted, and messaged Andy saying that he felt “I am not qualified to vote”, and Andy texted back saying that, in effect “the constitution says you can”. One of these persons, according to a signatory, said that Andy had brought “about a dozen” persons to the meeting, supported by the estimates of several signatories themselves.

We also witnessed several individuals having to be told or “reminded” of which events they attended, highly suggesting they in fact attended no events whatsoever. At the very least, virtually all signatories can testify there were individuals present whom were not recognised. We are not sure if every voter underwent the same scrutiny, which would imply a certain preferential treatment, several signatories were not questioned for their credentials, which is indicative of an uneven application of due diligence. If we were overlooked, in short, who else was? There was one non-present board member, Miranda Pacheco, who was allowed to cast an absentee ballot from Buenos Aires, despite the Constitution making no provision for such a method of voting. At least one non-present signatory, who attended general body meetings, was not afforded this privilege.

Furthermore, the testifier stated that the questions were coordinated amongst the questioners, with one in particular (inquiring about a mayoral debate in November, despite the fact the questioner had not been in attendance) being suggested to the questioner by Jamie Boothe at the suggestion of Andy Truelove. This, again, suggests an active interest in the presidential race—and we know that Andy was supporting Eyvana, despite his prior assurances to the contrary; again we have reason to believe collaboration between the two.

In addition, it is noted that the President interrupted one candidate’s answer to a question in order to give a “clarification” that in effect was a condemnation, noting that “the board had to twice issue reprimands for excessive absences,” this despite his clarification, made in his address as well as to the Board of Directors on a prior occasion, that he dealt with a family emergency whose gravity was made clear to all present on both occasions. One of the above signed, who is fully aware of the (confidential) extent of this situation, considers to be a particularly egregious incident.

Following the vote for the President, whose results were not stated but said to be “close”, several persons, over ten according to some signatories, left the election. This suggests that they were brought there, by persons with an investment in a particular candidate or the particular candidate themselves, in order to vote for that candidate. Knowing what has been stated of the general suspicion of the qualifications of several voters, it seems reasonable to hold this as evidence of “vote stacking”. The same was mirrored, more clearly, following the election for Executive Director, were “over a dozen” people left the room and, containing anywhere between 50-60 people at the beginning, the room was considered to be “empty” and over half the people having left. According to Eitan Neugut’s count, there were exactly 34 remaining. This, again, strongly suggests people were brought in to ensure a certain result in a specific election.

Aftermath of the Election

Following the publication of a piece critical of the conduct of the election on Bwog, Eyvana issued a statement condemning the site for publishing remarks that she deemed “racist and sexist”. This is despite the fact that the article made no mention of her race or gender. Despite the fact that the letter itself drew a broad, overly hostile brush against opponents, what it indicated was a certain rashness that seems to portend ill for future confrontation. Will the response for successive controversy be to make accusations of racism? The accusations, as per the general commentary on her remarks, were regarded with universal derision by the campus community.

Furthermore, several signatories have heard of disturbing threats made towards possible critics. At least one member has noted that the outgoing leadership has worked to “shut down” those who have contacted the board about the conduct of the election. At least one signatory was actively told that his membership in the organisation would be at risk if he were to continue making criticisms. Several were told that Eyvana had contacted or been contacted by national news organisations with the intent of using this controversy as a “showcase on racism within the Republican Party”, in effect, to defame the name of her critics permanently and comprehensively. The plausibility of these remarks aside, such comments show an alarming attitude towards the general body and completely contradict statements made expressing a desire for an open discussion of the issues. At least one signatory noted that she had said “she had Marco Rubio confirmed” and another said that he was going to write a letter noting that the “racist treatment” Eyvana supposedly was subjected to was “exactly what was wrong with today’s Republican party”. These sorts of remarks are frightening to us all and seem indicative of an attitude intolerant of disagreement, much less dissent.


Overall, we believe that the statement listed above is reason to investigate the relevant documents—the Operations Manual, the SGB by-laws, constitution, and judicial process—to determine whether any rules of the parent organisation were violated. We firmly believe that in order to truly achieve reconciliation we must hold new elections and have individuals who have acted against the spirit and letter of the Constitution, as well as generally contravening moral principles, face appropriate consequences. Without this, we, the above signed, believe that there will be a catastrophic crisis of confidence in the upcoming year.

Write a comment

Your email address will not be published.



  • a guy says:

    @a guy Jesus these guys must have really rigged it then. No shit…

    1. Heisenberg says:

      @Heisenberg If someone threatened violence go to campus security or feel free to out the person or screenshot the message. As one of the members against Eyvana, I can assure you not only has no one threatened her, but we discussed her making up these claims. So far Eyvana claims that we are sexist, racist, and violent. Maybe its just the fact we are right. If you think the membership actually supports you, have new elections. If not, be President of a club whose members do not support you.

  • CUCR Member says:

    @CUCR Member I find it interesting that they listed as board members individuals who are incoming board members, elected in the same election that they consider to be so illegitimate.

    1. rrr says:

      @rrr Unbreakable logic

      1. optimist says:

        @optimist or maybe they care more about the club than their personal gain

        1. Anonymous says:

          @Anonymous What else is being a Republican about if not callous personal gain?

    2. CUCR member says:

      @CUCR member All “illegitimate” voters left after the election for the second position (Executive Director). The remaining voting body consisted only of committed CUCR members who bothered to stick around for the rest of the elections. Therefore, the following elections were legitimate.

      1. SMH says:

        @SMH You think maybe there is a slight possibility that is because the elections for President and Vice President lasted AN HOUR!!!!!!!!!

        1. SMH says:

          @SMH The fact that you don’t include that critical fact tells me that you are full of it!!!

          1. Anonymous says:

            @Anonymous In an internet argument, the person who uses the most exclamation marks wins!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous The tyranny is incredible. I cannot even begin to explain how deep this goes or what Kate has done. Eyvana too. They canceled the meeting because we wanted to go to it and voice our opinions and they blamed the cancellation on us threatening violence which never happened. They had to lie because canceling the meeting violated the constitution.

    1. lol says:

      @lol Tyranny really? Lol have you ever lived in an actual dictatorship? because I have and you sound like a 15 year old girl arguing with her parents

      1. Anonymous says:

        @Anonymous I know why they canceled it and that was because public saftey reccomended that we change the meeting to a later date. This was due to threats being made and public saftey wanting to insure everyone’s saftey. I assure you the board knew this meeting was coming and the meeting was happening until public saftey gave this reccomendation.

  • lol says:

    @lol I stopped reading after “As..”

    1. optimist says:

      @optimist yeah, the whole letter was pretty pretentiously worded

  • SMH says:

    @SMH This is probably the stupidest thing I have seen all year long. All of this over a silly college club.

    1. Anonymous says:

      @Anonymous I respect that point of view but you are not in our shoes. That is how we looked at it too until we were wronged. Something doesn’t sit right inside when the happens and we have to make this right. We just wanted to be heard, in a professional and peaceful manner and Kate has done everything she can to sweep this under the rug.

      1. hello says:

        @hello Ok I appreciate your viewpoint Anonymous

      2. SMH says:

        @SMH I actually am in your shoes. I am in your club and I come a lot. I was at the elections. The idea that the elections were rigged is pretty much the stupidest thing I have ever heard. What’s more is that the controversy that you guys are stirring makes the club look really really bad. So, I for one will not return next year because you all are just a bunch of whiney babies. SMH

        1. lol says:

          @lol thanks for the input, eyvana.

      3. Someone completely unaffected by this but thinks it's completely realistic this would happen in any club says:

        @Someone completely unaffected by this but thinks it's completely realistic this would happen in any club thought I’d sneak a VShow reference in here- “sweeping it under the rug like the PrezBo administration does with all claims of sexual misconduct”.

        But actually, if you read what they wrote, they make a good point that because the club has already elicited such attention about potentially rigged elections, if SGB forces them to have a second round of voting, then honor will be restored to the club as there will be no doubt to the legitimacy of the club.

        All that being said, it’s just a club, and you could probably even lie about your position on your resume and your job still wouldn’t care/notice.

  • hahaha says:

    @hahaha They just removed the name of the members haha what is it are you embarrassed?

    1. Anonymous says:

      @Anonymous Some members are scared of the repercussions from around the university and from the well connected Eboard. It is understandable.

      1. Anonymous says:

        @Anonymous have some balls.

        1. Zachary Neugut CC '16 says:

          @Zachary Neugut CC '16 I signed. I don’t think its wrong not to want your name out there though

        2. SEAS '15 says:

          @SEAS '15 you do realize the irony in your anonymous statement, right?

    2. Anonymous says:

      @Anonymous wait… so the members sent a statement to Bwog… then asked Bwog to take down their names… and bwog AGREED? what the fuck.

      1. jokes on them says:

        @jokes on them because it’s still in the original document

    3. anonymous butthurt Bwog commentator says:

      @anonymous butthurt Bwog commentator This is stupid. If you want to put your name to a public statement you should stand by it. If not you are no better than all the anonymous butthurt Bwog commentators.


      Members of the Board of Directors:

      Ellie Dominguez, Social Director
      Kyle Dontoh, Director of Finance
      Peter Giraudo, Director of Intergroup Affairs

      Members of the General Body:

      Victoria Fernandez Grande
      Zachary Neugut
      Nathan Lyons
      Gilad Norman Penn
      Nicole Santoro
      Eitan Neugut
      Ben Sweetwood
      Mira Frenkel
      Christopher Sabaitis
      Mimoun Cadosch Delmar
      Brandon Marco
      Kevin Zajc

      1. ^ that person above says:

        @^ that person above to clear things up, that is a copy of the signatories of the original CUCR document. Those people did NOT sign that Bwog comment.

  • elephant no longer in the room says:

    @elephant no longer in the room nothing new here. dealt with this at 3 out of 4 cucr elections during my time. glad someone is confronting it out in the open.

  • anon says:

    @anon #CollegeClubsAreSrsBusiness #IfYouDisagreeWithMeYoureRacist

  • wow says:


  • Nice try CUCR says:

    @Nice try CUCR But you failed. Spring 2014 is definitely third fiddle to Spring 2013 and Spring 2012 in terms of drama.

  • Johnnycomelately says:

    @Johnnycomelately CUCR members setting the standard for complaining about idiotic things. oh the injustice!!! Oh the tyranny!!!

  • also says:

    @also I know for a fact that Eyvana’s family has not flown in to New York so if you stopped being hypocrites and liars maybe it would get better?

  • disappointed says:

    @disappointed bwog, i can’t believe you reused the same fabulous picture of Kate Christensen. I thought you had some journalistic standards…

  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous FYI- All of their information is coming from a person who hasn’t been to a Republican meeting in months. Such credibility haha.

    1. SEAS '15 says:

      @SEAS '15 And all of this information is coming from the SAME PERSON flooding the comments section under multiple names pretending to be OTHER PEOPLE.

      Seriously? How can you point fingers at others for fabrication when that is literally what you are doing? How do you even have the nerve?

      1. who are some of these people says:

        @who are some of these people the person leading this was someone brought in just to vote for Bob and was barely eligible to vote she reached out to me to join their faction and I didn’t even think she was in this club. HA so glad she likes feeling important driving the lie bus

        1. SEAS '15 says:

          @SEAS '15 Way to completely evade the accusation? You are literally pretending to be two different people to make fake accusations.

  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous And I thought CIRCA elections were bad.

  • Engineer Here With a Solution says:

    @Engineer Here With a Solution Here’s the best solution. Have everyone mass quit CUCR and start a new club. Then the winner will be the one who killed the club. You guys also get the chance to rewrite the club’s constitution so this doesn’t happen again. It’s a win win and the drama can stop so everyone can go back to studying.

    I don’t get you college kids, you never see this drama in Engineering clubs.

    1. Anonymous says:

      @Anonymous True! and you Engineers always have much better t-shirts…and will probably get hired unlike anyone stupid enough to put membership in the college Republicans on their resume…

      …bottom line? Let’s all be engineers :)

    2. Anonymous says:

      @Anonymous It’s called money. CUCR has a several thousand dollar budget. A new club would only get a few hundred dollars. It has been thought of.

      1. Engineer Here With a Solution says:

        @Engineer Here With a Solution Co-sponsorship, Corporate Sponsorship. That would only last for 2 years, and a much strong club would form on campus. Yes, it would suck for 2 years, but hard work will make things happen.

        1. Anonymous says:

          @Anonymous First, how the heck do you expect them to get a sponsorship? That’s not easy. If they could, they would have already. Second, in two years almost every person involved in CUCR will be gone. Leave it to the CC/BC/GS kids to figure it out, Mr. Engineer.

  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous So you’re telling me they’ve seen one of Andy’s friends’ text messages to Andy? And that people in a church group are going to parties? This is a complete fabrication by some people with lax morals who are upset that the party is moving in the right directon.

    1. quel horreur says:


      1. Anonymous says:

        @Anonymous If you respect the idea that Christians should be obedient, which most Christians do, than it’s pretty ridiculous to suggest Andy was inviting them en masse to parties.

        1. Episcodisco says:

          @Episcodisco wat

  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous Some of these Republcans need help.

  • Wait says:

    @Wait this can’t even compare to this year’s CIRCA election…

  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha

  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous It’s always nice to see that the fact Bobtom offered to help people get internships in exchange for voting for him–including the source of much of this post– is glossed over by Bwog.

    1. CC'15 says:

      @CC'15 Always glossed over? There’s been two posts. And for the record, Russian language majors don’t need help getting an internship.

      1. SEAS '15 says:

        @SEAS '15 Why are you writing comments and then replying to yourself? While pretending to be someone else? Stop trying to cast her in a bad light. You’re pathetic.

    2. Anonymous says:

      @Anonymous You’re a terrible troll. You know people can track your comments, right? Posting 8 times and pretending to be different people is kind of moronic.

  • Jay Kent says:

    @Jay Kent Pointless popularity contests are serious business.

  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous So the names on this petition were taken off… That shows that these people aren’t prepared to place their names on this statement. In addition, one must realize the ridiculous claims that are being made. And nearly all the outlandish claims are he said she said there is no proof of any of this. What I can say though is I know Andy invited 4 people I was one of them and they all had attended meetings. This claim that he brought 10-20 of his Christian friends is ridiculous. Think of the logistics of it how would anyone get that many people to come out and vote for you without having attended a single meeting? The answer is you can’t. This entire petition is based on he said she said. Also I know for a fact that nearly all these people supported Bobtom for the presidency. He planned this election for months in advance. I know for a fact he offered multiple people internships during election season. Someone like that would be more than willing to stir unrest and trick people who care about this club into destroying it, if they lost an election. To those that signed this petition I say its not too late please think about the consequences. Your trying to destroy the final bastion of conservatism at this school please don’t let this happen.

    1. Grammar Nazi says:

      @Grammar Nazi *you’re

      1. Anonymous says:

        @Anonymous #help

    2. "final bastion of conservatism"? says:

      @"final bastion of conservatism"? Nah, there’s always the B-School.

      1. Peaches says:

        @Peaches Well you got them and the random Bwog commenters who’ve called me a “typical liberal” when I said that rape was bad.

  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous This statement is 100% true. I sat right behind Andy and his friends. Andy brought 4 people, all of whom were qualified voters who attended meetings. Kate asked all four which meetings they had attended. Everyone answered on their own; there was no reminding. On the other hand, Max brought at least six people by my count and probably more. Moreover, Bobtom was handing out internships like candy and brought a few friends too. All of this is possible because the voting requirements are ridiculously low. However, I’m fairly certain bribing people is illegal, so it looks like the only person who cheated was Bobtom. But, it doesn’t even matter because he lost by seven votes. Another election would just send him into a depression because he would realize a majority of the general body despises his integrity, not Andy’s. So if you consider yourself a friend of Bobtom, don’t vote for another election.

  • Jackinthebox says:

    @Jackinthebox I wouldn’t want to me listed as one of Bobtom’s pawns either.

    1. a guy says:

      @a guy Can we talk about how you’ve made six comments under pretty much as many names? We get the point.

      1. a guy says:

        @a guy Pardon me, FOURTEEN COMMENTS. FOURTEEN.

        1. a guy says:

          @a guy Actually, it’s seven. I don’t know why I thought fourteen. But I mean it’s still the same.

          1. whatdoesitmatter says:

            @whatdoesitmatter So what? You aren’t exactly commenting with your full name.

  • lol says:

    @lol Bwog, if you’re looking into sketchy elections, you should talk to some CIRCA people.

    1. Anonymous says:


  • a guy says:

    @a guy Either way my point is that if you click “track” you find that a bunch of these comments are coming from the same people.

  • i honestly dont care about any of this says:

    @i honestly dont care about any of this but it sure beats studying for finals

    1. Sad Alum says:

      @Sad Alum This is false. Take me back to finals and school and all day library excursions………………….

  • Blunts in Butler says:

    @Blunts in Butler Dude. They’re the College REPUBLICANS. No one cares.

  • CUCR Member says:

    @CUCR Member Members signed that statement when it was meant to be a statement to be read to the board of the club, and not a public campus wid epublication. Someone submitted it to Bwog without the permission of the rest of the group, and without confirming that we wanted our names ut there. We certainly want the board to know who we are, we just do not want the entire university to find out.

  • jk says:


  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous tl;dr

  • aww says:

    @aww poor thing did they beat you at the election??! Your very important dad who raised you as a good Republican will call his very important lawyer friends to help you out don’t worry darling and keep some space there’s derby pie for dessert!

  • ndsfd says:

    @ndsfd Everyone here needs to check their privileged there are places where people would be killed for criticizing their “democratically elected” leaders like North Korea.

    1. Peaches says:

      @Peaches Just because some people are less privileged than us doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t challenge injustice. That’d be like saying we shouldn’t have worried about civil rights in the 60s because there is famine elsewhere.

      1. rrr says:

        @rrr Are you really comparing this to the Civil Rights movement ??? Haha you guys are such heroes I wish I was more like you, fighting for justice and truth wow

        1. Peaches says:

          @Peaches No, of course I’m not. I’m just using a more extreme example to clarify my point.

      2. fdsf says:

        @fdsf fuck you peaches ur an ass in real life

        1. Peaches says:

          @Peaches (´Д`)

          I’m so sorry if I’ve ever wronged you.

  • These are Columbia students? says:

    @These are Columbia students? “We do not feel that, in light of recent events, that our views…”

    “…who are considered as committed acts in contempt…”

    “According to the aforementioned source, said that Andy instructed them…”

    “He expressed concern over his qualifications to voted…”

    “…there were individuals present whom were not recognised…”

    “The same was mirrored, more clearly, following the election for Executive Director, were “over a dozen” people left the room and, containing anywhere between 50-60 people at the beginning, the room was considered to be “empty” and over half the people having left.”

    My God, do any of these people know how to write?

    1. CUCR member says:

      @CUCR member Hey, I was one of the people who helped write this . It was edited, added to, had segments deleted, names expunged, and whatnot, many times over by several people. I’m sorry if it’s exactly up to your grammatical standards.

    2. Fair point . . . says:

      @Fair point . . . but typos happen all the time. I’ve seen them everywhere – even in briefs to federal courts. Plus, the typos aren’t the worst part of their statement. Their style is just generally horrid, awful, pretentious, etc.

  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous Here are the people who signed the document

    Ellie Dominguez, Social Director

    Kyle Dontoh, Director of Finance

    Peter Giraudo, Director of Intergroup Affairs

    Victoria Fernandez Grande

    Zachary Neugut

    Nathan Lyons

    Gilad Norman Penn

    Nicole Santoro

    Eitan Neugut

    Ben Sweetwood

    Mira Frenkel

    Christopher Sabaitis

    Mimoun Cadosch Delmar

    Brandon Marco

    Kevin Zajc

    1. Heisenberg says:

      @Heisenberg Idk how you got this list, but interesting which names you decided to leave out. Why don’t you post the complete list?

      1. Anonymous says:

        @Anonymous Last I checked the bwog article said 13 people signed this…

        1. Heisenberg says:

          @Heisenberg And you posted 15 names

  • Heisenberg says:

    @Heisenberg And you posted 15 names

  • Honestly says:

    @Honestly Get a life guys…

  • Political theorist says:

    @Political theorist Fuckin GDI’s

  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous This is all just really stupid. CUCR is a meaningless discussion club. The stakes are getting to talk to a few insane politicians (although there weren’t any speakers this year) and buying pizza for thirty members every week. I’m amazed that people are wasting so much time on this. The way these people are fighting and scheming, one would think that the internships Bobtom promised are conditional on him being elected president. But is getting coffee for someone really meaningful either? How about everyone just lets the election results stand? Would that be okay with you Nicole… I mean Heisenberg?

  • Ol' Gregg says:

    @Ol' Gregg Ever drunk Bailey’s from a shoe? Wanna go to a club where people wee on each other?

    You’re all rigid. Like a breadstick. You see, you don’t understand! I got the funk. The funk is a living creature, about the size of a medicine ball, but covered in teats. It came from outer space and landed on Bootsy Collins’s house. Back then, Bootsy was just a simple farmer, but he took one look at all them titties and he lost his mind!

    He began to milk the funk. He passed out, but when he came to, he was slapping the bass like some kinda delirious funky priest. He traveled the world with his band Parliament. But one day they were in the Mothership, fooling around with the funk, when George Clinton kicked the funk clean overboard. That was July 2, 1979… the day the funk died.

    That’s when I found the funk. At first I thought it was a sea anemone, but on closer inspection, I realized it was funky ball of tits from outer space.

    I’M OL’ GREGG!

    1. Bob Sun says:

      @Bob Sun I don’t know who this is, but it’s not me. Is anonymity not enough anymore? Are we impersonating others now?

      1. Anonymous says:

        @Anonymous this is typical of Bob Sun that he would assume that someone using the name Bob is impersonating him

  • Arsene Wenger /Varsity_Show/ edition says:

    @Arsene Wenger /Varsity_Show/ edition Does anyone actually care about this or are we using this as procrastination?

  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous Lol you need to get a life. Don’t you have finals to study for and papers to write? You have been commenting non-stop since the first post, not to mention stirring up a majority of the drama, which only makes the club look bad. But, I guess you care so much about the club, don’t you? Is that why you skipped a few…months?

  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous Let them off to Argentina where Croat and Arab nazis pork for lore enforcement (as in “FBI”!!??!!) instead of working

  • Have Your Say

    What should you actually Venmo people for?

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

    Recent Comments

    You left out GS in the population count... (read more)
    Back Of The Envelope: How Many Essays Will We Write This Semester?
    February 25, 2020
    hehe i feel called out rn :) (read more)
    The Daily Life Of A First-Year
    February 23, 2020
    You are so right! I'm glad someone finallyyyyy acknowledged this :) (read more)
    ConspiracyBwog: The Pupin Elevator is a Portal to Hell
    February 23, 2020
    I want to leave an appreciation for Bwog actually using the gender pronouns Tess's friends say they used at Barnard. (read more)
    Updates On The Case Of Tess Majors
    February 23, 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