72 CommentsUpdate, October 19th: the U Senate SAC executive committee has found that no rules on confidentiality were broken, and there was no wrongdoing by any of the student senators on the committee. In a statement released today, they added: “We have spoken to Jared and Sejal, and we’re pleased to confirm that both will be remaining on the committee as strong student advocates and participating in a process which needs student voices.”
Yesterday’s Rules of University Conduct Town Hall allowed students and activist groups the chance to voice their opinions before policy changes were definitively made. According to a tip we received earlier today, many of these opinions came from the same source: a “google doc…used to feed lines to activists” that may have been shared by a member or members of the University Senate. It is unclear whether anyone on U Senate was actually involved in writing the document. Involvement in writing the document would likely be considered a violation of the U Senate’s rules; such violations may be punished with suspension.
The tipster went on to say they were “embarrassed by how the leadership of our campus groups that like to think of themselves as independent were shepherded instead of thinking for themselves.” However, there is no clear evidence in the document that it was written by a single person, or that any of those people were U Senators—the tip did not include the list of people who could edit the Google doc.
The document itself breaks down the Town Hall step by step, listing questions students plan to ask, and noting, “these are arguments we’ve identified as being the most likely to sway swing votes on the Committee…. this list isn’t exhaustive, it’s just the essential points we need to be made in front of the campus media.” Each potential question includes background information such as applicability and past precedents included in bullet points. Between the questions, the document leaves room for personal stories and possible follow-ups. The document also includes such advice as: “There will be Public Safety and Senate Staff at the doors to the event checking CUIDs, and they may object to signs.”
A copy of the full document is included after the jump:
About This Document
If you’re receiving this strategy document, it’s because you’re a point person for a directly affected organization that has expressed concerns about the Rules. If you’re involved with multiple organizations and aren’t sure who you’re repping, there’s a listing at the bottom of this document. Listed here are strategies to make the Town Hall as successful as possible and push swing votes on the Committee on to students’ sides.
We need two things: to pack the room (which has 330 seats) and to have people raising key questions/points that we and your organizations have identified as priorities. You’ve volunteered to coordinate for your org, so we need you to make sure everyone turns up and that the statements your organization volunteered to ask are asked.
Please note that this document is HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL; we don’t want to tip anyone off to our strategy, so please do not share with anyone besides core organizers in your group. DO NOT share this with any media or anyone who may share this with media. IF YOU CAN’T MAKE THE TOWN HALL and don’t have the bandwidth this week to coordinate your organization, let us know ASAP who from your group can.
BRING YOUR LAPTOPS OR PHONES so we can coordinate who’s asking which questions and so that we can get people to the mic. If you’d like to be available for media comments on this Town Hall or on the Rules in general, please let us know.
Before Town Hall
1) INVITE people to the Facebook event:
https://www.facebook.com/events/1605281393032884/?ref=3&ref_newsfeed_story_type=regular
2) SHARE the FB event on your newsfeed.
3) DISTRIBUTE the FB event and a blurb on any listservs you have access to. There are blurbs at the bottom of the document.
4) Student activists are coordinating a MIDNIGHT FLYERING CAMPAIGN to raise awareness for the Town Hall. Contact Abby Porter (amporter38@gmail.com) to be involved.
5) MAKE SIGNS for the Town Hall. We want the room to look packed with passionate people — the more signs, the better. We think rights-based language or specific demands will probably be most effective at this stage in the process.
– IMPORTANT: There will be Public Safety and Senate Staff at the doors to the event checking CUIDs, and they may object to signs. If you can, hide banners and signs in bags, and only bring them out when the Town Hall starts. If you can’t hide your sign, point out that the Rules do NOT prohibit signage at this event.
– Examples: “Protect Protest”, “Free Speech on Campus”, “PrezBo Don’t Forget the 1st Amendment?”, “End Mandatory Minimums”, “External = Neutral,” “We Demand Our Right to Counsel.”, etc.
– Feel free to add other messaging tailored to your group or to email/text/call us for thoughts on language!
6) ESTIMATE how many people your group can bring to the Town Hall. We’re counting our way to to 330 so please let us know ASAP! If possible, not to double-count anyone who’ll be there representing other organizations.
Seating at Town Hall
– IF YOU PLAN TO SPEAK
– Please sit in rows 4-9, or as close to the front as possible. Fill the first level, and only go to the balcony if it’s full. If it’s hard to get a seat in the first level, and you’re comfortable with it, sit in the aisle — we want this room to look packed.
– If you have signs, make sure you’re not sitting with all the other people who have signs; we want signs spread out, not clumped together.
– IF YOU’RE NOT GOING TO SPEAK:
– That’s okay! We appreciate your presence anyway.
– You can hold signs for your organization! Some groups are bringing banners to show that they care.
– We need active supporters to sit in the first 3-4 rows. That means nodding, snapping, and clapping. We want rounds of snaps for every strong statement for student rights.
– If there’s no more space there, sit anywhere on the first level that’s available. If that space is full, then move to the balcony.
– If you have to leave the Town Hall early, please sit in the top rows of the first level or in the balcony.
– SIGNS AND BANNERS
– Hold/hang banners over the balcony for good photo ops!
– If you have a sign, don’t sit right next to someone else with a sign — try to scatter a little bit so that there’s signs all throughout the audience. If you have a sign, please try to sit in the first level, rows 4 — 9; if that area is full, sit in the central area of the balcony.
Questions at Town Hall
These are the points we think are most important to raise during the Town Hall — all of these are arguments we’ve identified as being the most likely to sway swing votes on the Committee. Of course, if you have specific questions or statements relative to your organization, you should definitely ask things that aren’t listed here — this list isn’t exhaustive, it’s just the essential points we need to be made in front of the campus media. Please let us know ASAP if you or your org would like to be responsible for any of these talking points.
Drafting Process
● “This questions is for the Chair of the Committee, Mr. Riano. While these rules apply to the entire community, they have never been used to prosecute anyone besides students. In fact, these rules have been used almost exclusively to punish undergraduates. Will undergraduate students be directly involved in the drafting process?”[Dems/ Jordana]
○ Note: Direct this question to “The Chair of the Committee, Christopher Riano”. DO NOT let them get away with redirecting the question — insist on a guarantee that undergraduates will be directly involved in the drafting of ALL language. We need a public commitment that our allies will be in the room when language is drafted.
→ Which undergraduates are invited into drafting? Solely those on the Rules Committee? Why aren’t they inviting other undergraduates since this reform is structural? !!!!!! – somebody should run up to te mic and follow up with this RIGHT NOW you go girl!!!!!
Independent Process Questions + Concerns
● Chilling effect on speech with an internal process
○ NOTE: Please go through these questions in this order.
○ “If a Dean or other administrator in charge of this internal process happened to personally know the student being tried, will they be allowed to make a judgement? What protections would there be against this form of bias?” [[LUCHA]]
○ “For a hypothetical internal process: how can we expect Deans and other administrators to be neutral in judging free speech which directly criticizes them or this institution? No Red Tape protesters have publicly criticized the exact same administrators who’d be judging their cases in an internal process. The administration has an incentive to shut protest down — why would students ever trust them? [[ISO]] – who is saying this? — i havent received a response from cami, so anyone who can — Cami said she can! you just say it
○ Can we also make an ask for an internal dean’s discipline process to be Public if the student chooses? — I think it’s a good ask, but Chris is just going to say that we have no jurisdiction over that, which we dont
○ Jared I have a question – what does the decision to “overhaul” the rules or not entail? He keeps referencing the potential for it not to be considered. — the decision to make any change, the push from the administration to move internal
■ Will this be a vote that the comittee makes? there was a vote in the spring – what was the result? to move forward with changes, but the vote will be taken again after the fall town halls K, thanks. — but the spring vote indicates that most people want to move forward
○ Story 1: Personal experiences that make you mistrust Deans in adjudication.
○ (From an activist) — “I personally would have been really scared to engage in yprotest activity if we didn’t have an independent adjudication process. I’m directly criticizing Deans and administrators and if they could suspend or expel me for speaking up, I don’t think I would have.” [[NRT/Dems]]
○ Story 2: Personal experiences with Deans that make you mistrust them
○ “How can we make it easier for the Deans to suspend or expel students for criticism without shutting down protest on campus? If people are afraid think that the Admin’s going to judge them they’re just never going to speak out in the first place. This is a University — shouldn’t we be encouraging debate?” [[Sean]]
○ “How can we know that an internal, administrative-driven process won’t be driven by outside pressure? During the Minutemen stage incident, prominent media personalities like Bill O’Reilly and Lou Dobbs were on air telling donors to withhold contributions to financial aid unless the University expelled the students involved. If the process was controlled by the administration, and not by a neutral outside arbiter, how do we know they won’t be biased by that pressure?” [[LUCHA]]
○ Story 3: Personal story from Miles, SJP
○ “”Last year, when SJP hung a pro-Palestine banner at Barnard, donors called the University threatening to withhold their donations unless Barnard took the banner down. Even though every other student group on campus has always been able to put their banners up, the University took ours down because of pressure from those donors — they specifically discriminated against pro-Palestinian speech on campus. How can we know that that pressure won’t affect all internal processes? How can we know the administration will be neutral towards controversial speech? Every year, I stand on college walk protesting Israeli apartheid and the occupation of Palestine, where I grew up. If I were expelled or suspended for chanting during Israeli apartheid week, which is entirely possible under the current Rules, my visa would be immediately revoked. I would have to immediately return to the jurisdiction of the Israeli authorities, who could jail me for my opinions. How can you justify getting one
of your students deported, ruining one of your students lives, for exercising their free speech in a non-disruptive way?” [[SJP — Hadeel ]]
○ Other potential stories:
■ Columbia allowing NYPD to spy on MSA?
■ No Red Tape threatened?
● Range of Punishments for Independent Process
○ “The external process affords you far more due process rights than an internal process, but people are never going to opt for the external process if you can only be found not guilty, suspended, or expelled. Under Dean’s Discipline, the range of sanctions is much broader (including warning and censure), but this is a non-transparent process. Students are thus deterred by the threat of harsher punishment from choosing the hearing that is going to be open, public, and transparent! The hearing officer in an external process should have the full range of punishments at their disposal.” [[GendeRevolution]]
○ “Students who are found responsible in the external process can only be punished with suspension or expulsion, no matter how minor their offense. How can the administration justify mandatory minimums for free speech activity?” [[CQA–Brennon]]
○ In deciding the case of students in the 1992 Audubon Ballroom protests in which students blocked an entrance to Hamilton Hall, Judge Harold Tyler wrote in the conclusion of his decision: “I wish that I had more flexibility in imposing sanctions than the rules permit … Rules of this nature deserve to be reconsidered with reasonable frequency by universities such as Columbia which have high standards in the field of civil liberties.” The hearing officer would have preferred censure, but he was mandated by these Rules to suspend students who were engaging in reasonable free speech activity. How is this acceptable? [[Grad Students]]
● Dean’s Discipline
○ “Can you explain the difference between the external process and the internal Dean’s Discipline process?” [[CQA — Caitlin]] asked
■ NOTE: When you ask this question, look at Sejal but don’t verbally direct it to her
■ Important Follow Up Question: “Will Dean’s Discipline be a model for an internal process?”
● Legal Representation In An Independent Process
○ If it really wants to encourage robust debate on campus, the University should assist students in finding legal representation whenever they are going through a Rules case. The excuse for getting rid of an independent, external process should not be that students might not be able to find or afford lawyers to represent their interests. What can the University do to help guarantee the right to a lawyer?
○ Could Law School faculty be available to support students in these proceedings? Maybe tenured faculty who specialize in First Amendment proceedings? [[Marshall]] asked
● Witness Rights
○ We’ve seen in archives from past cases that witnesses in the external process must waive their Fifth Amendment rights, specifically for self-incrimination. While an external process seems preferable to an internal process, it’s completely unjust that witnesses can be incriminated as things currently stand. [[Grad Students]]
○ The internal processes we have right now are so administration-driven that students don’t even have the right to present witnesses in their defense at Dean’s Discipline hearings. Are people actually going to be able to make a case for themselves under this proposed internal process?
Severity of Sanctions
● In 1992, 7 students were prosecuted under the Rules in connection to protests about the University raising the Audobon Ballroom, where Malcolm X was shot, and the University’s plan to drastically cut financial aid and end need-blind financial aid for all students. Those students were charged with “blockading entrances” but they only blocked one of the doors to Hamilton for half an hour. Hamilton has three doors, so people could still get to class and the University’s function wasn’t really disrupted, but several of them were suspended from the University. How are these kinds of punishments appropriate? ‘[[ISO]]
Broad Language Questions + Concerns
● SWS: Applicability of rules to campus workers: After Emma Sulkowicz began her now-famous senior thesis, which protested how the University handles sexual violence hearings, desk attendants at Barnard were warned against letting students take their mattresses out from their buildings (supposedly because the mattresses are the property of the university). Campus union contracts often broadly stipulate the right to protest, but we are afraid it is possible that that right could be pushed aside if the rules of conduct are not further clarified. What are you doing to make sure that campus workers do not feel threatened of accusations of complicity in violations of rules? More broadly, how can we make sure that workers feel free to agitate for fair contracts and working conditions?
● Prosecution of Noise Violations —
○ 443(a)(12) — “causes a noise that substantially hinders others in their normal academic activities”
○ Pretty much every Low Steps involve yelling, chanting, or amplified sound — and that sounds always carries into classrooms in Dodge or Hamilton. This rule basically makes it illegal for students to protest *at all*.
○ NOTE: please bring up these specific examples in separate questions — we want to make sure this point is made multiple times!
■ Specific Example — Stand with Survivors Protest [[NRT]]
■ Specific Example — Labor Solidarity Protests [[SWS/Grad Students]]
■ Specific Example — CPD/CAGe protest at World Leaders Forum [[CPD]]
● Property Damage
● After Emma Sulkowitz beg
○ 443(a)(5) — “causes minor property damage or loss, or endangers property on a University facility”
○ The Rules say that even “minor” property damage is punishable. What about when the CUCR plants flags on the lawns to commemorate 9/11? That damages the grass. Or the Native American Council’s midnight flyering campaign about Indigenous People’s Day — that could damage buildings or paint when the tape is ripped down. That stuff is minor but the Rules explicitly includes minor property damage. Could we change that to “substantial and permanent” property damage?
○ Would putting red tape around campus count as “minor” property damage? Could people be prosecuted for that? Why do the Rules consider even the most minor property damage to be more important than protecting free speech on campus?
● Brief Disruption of Events —
○ 443(a)(13) — “briefly interrupts a University function”
○ When the Philippines president came to speak at the World Leaders Forum a few weeks ago, several people briefly interrupted the event to raise legitimate concerns about human rights violations in the country. When we elevate world leaders on a pedestal at events such as these, heckling is one of the few ways for people to express disagreement, and this should clearly be protected under the Rules. That was a one minute interruption that didn’t seriously curtail the ability of anyone to speak — how is this punishable?
○ How brief can these interruptions be? If an interruption is brief, then it doesn’t prevent the event from going forward — why wouldn’t we limit punishments to substantial disruption of events?
● Entering Administrative Offices Without Permission
○ 443(a)(11) — “Persons may not enter a private office unless invited and then not in excess of the number designated or invited by the occupant. Anyone so entering must leave on request of a recognized occupant of such office or on request of another authorized person.… For this purpose, the delegate may advise demonstrators as to the permissible number of participants in such restricted areas and regulate the location of such participants.”
○ Delivering letters or petitions to offices is fundamental to getting the message delivered in many protest activities that involve the University. It seems that the language about entering a private office is so overly broad that it could hinder the ability of reasonable protesters to get letters and petitions to the people that need to see them. [example about Prison Divest delivering a letter to Bollinger’s front desk] It would be unacceptable for this to be prosecuted. (Prison Divest)
○ What about bringing additional people into meetings in order to facilitate conversations?
Standards of Evidence
– the suveillance apparatus is fundamentally different in 2014 than it was in 1968. Last year, two student activists were subject to a disciplinary hearing related to a worker’s rights rally. When they asked if students had the right to access camera footage of the event for their defense, every member of the administration who they contacted refused to answer their question.Does a student or staff member going through this process have access to footage that might be exculpatory? [[ Gabi & CPD ]]
– In recent years, it came to light that Columbia was allowing NYPD to spy on and profile Muslim students, to the point that NYPD’s cyber-intelligence unit was receiving a “Weekly MSA Report”. Can information gathered by NYPD surveillance be used in this non-legal, non-criminal procedure? And as a follow up, how can we trust an administration who has allowed NYPD to target our community on the basis of stereotypes and prejudice? [[ MSA question ]]
– In Ben Jealous’ op-ed about the Dean’s Discipline process, he noted that you don’t have the opportunity to introduce witnesses in this hearing. Can we make sure that the ability to introduce witnesses is preserved in the Rules process, and can we push for it in Dean’s Discipline processes? [[GR]]
– What email evidence can be used? Columbia Email Usage Policy states: “For reasons relating to compliance, security or legal proceedings (e.g., subpoenas) or in an emergency or in exceptional circumstances, the Office of the General Counsel may authorize the reading, blocking or deletion of Data. In particular, in the context of a litigation or an investigation, it may be necessary to access Data with potentially relevant information.” How does this policy affect the way the Rules are prosecuted? [[ CPD ]]
– What about information/communications that happen using Columbia University Wi-Fi?
– Section II. a. of the Acceptable Usage of Information Resources Policy states: “The University respects the privacy of individuals and keeps User files and emails on central University Systems as private as possible. However, to protect the integrity of its Information Resources and the rights of all Users, the University reserves the right to monitor access to Information Resources, communications on the University Network and use of Systems and Data, as described in more detail in the Section III(C) of the Charter.
For reasons relating to compliance, security or legal proceedings (e.g., subpoenas) or in an emergency or in exceptional circumstances, the Office of the General Counsel may authorize the reading, blocking or deleting of Data. In particular, in the context of a litigation or an investigation, it may be necessary to access Data with potentially relevant information. Any such action taken must be immediately reported to the Office of the General Counsel and the applicable Information Security Office.”
^^^ WHAT DOES THAT MEAN IN TERMS OF PROSECUTING ALLEGED RULES VIOLATIONS?! [[CPD]]
Warnings
– The Rules state that you can still be prosecuted even if you receive a warning and stop your activity. Two weeks ago, almost no students on campus knew that these rules existed and they might not realize they’re breaking the rules. If people are warned, realize they may be violating the Rules, and change the way they’re protesting, how can it be fair to prosecute them?
– The Rules also state that you can be prosecuted even if you NEVER receive any warning (Violation #18) how is THAT fair? [[CPD]]
Reserve Clause
– “Disciplinary matters not specifically enumerated in these Rules are reserved in the case of students to the Deans of their schools or their delegated authorities and to the regulations and mechanisms they have established, and in the case of faculty and staff to the President of the University or his delegated authority and to the regulations and mechanisms that have been established to deal with such matters.” — This is too broad of a reserve clause, since it allows deans or central administration to prosecute for free speech activity that sits outside the Rules. It should be made clear that all conduct related to free speech activity is out of the hands of the deans.
Next Rules Administrator
– Should not be someone in the office of the EVP for Student Affairs, since these Rules apply to students, faculty, and staff!
Turnout Count: 197-200/330
Grad Students: 30-40
On this doc: 67-70
– BCD [Iliana/Amy]:
– BSO [Damon/Alexis]:
– CQA [Caitlin/Brennon]:
– Dems [Austin/Jord/Melissa]:
– GR [Caleb/Chris]: 5
– ISO [Cami]: 12-15
– LUCHA [Shiv/Megan]
– MSA [Yilma]:
– NAC:
– NRT [Becca/Michela]: 10
– SAMI/CPD [Gabi/Damon]: (at least 20ish, but hopefully more!)
– SGB [Mariam]:
– SJP [Shezza]: 8
– SWS [George/Becca]: 12
– Turath [Omar] : 5
Council: 25-30
Faculty:
Alums:
Labor [Maida; Faculty House?]:
Media: 10
Unaffiliated friends: 10
Est. Random Turnout: 20
Other Groups:
– Republicans: 5
– V Show: 3
– ABC: 5
Greek life: 15
Loading …
72 Comments
@Anonymous There is so much of hear-say, inflammatory interpretation of things in this article, it’s just sickening.
@Nicholas Murray Butler “I speak by authority for the whole university—for my colleagues of the Trustees and for my colleagues of the Faculties—when I say, with all possible emphasis; that there is and will be no place in Columbia University, either on the rolls of its Faculties or on the rolls of its students, for any person who opposes or who counsels opposition to the effective enforcement of the laws of the United States, or who acts, speaks, or writes treason. The separation of any such person from Columbia University will be as speedy as the discovery of his offense. This is the university’s last and only word of warning to any among us, if such there be, who are not with whole heart and mind and strength committed to fight with us to make the world safe for democracy.”
@Anonymous Wait a minute…campus organizers…organized?! What is this madness?!
Obviously the people with the potential to be negatively impacted by a change in policy were the people to show up and push for a different policy. The fact that it was a collaborated effort says…what exactly? That our different campus activist groups can come together to work on work that affects them all?
I’m sorry, but let’s be real, the activists on this list do not need direction to clap and cheer and whistle. They do not need to be told to bring their signs, they do not need to be reminded to show up in full force, we call them activists because they do this kind of stuff all the time. Hats off the the people making sure some of these extremely important and pressing questions got brought up in a public manner.
@Serpent's Critic How do you select which facts to report? What motivations inform these decisions?
@F If you haven’t realized, Bwog has been editing this document after it’s initial publication.
Make of that what you will.
@wow investigative journalism claire friedman from BWOG and samantha cooney from Spec are really thorough journalists!
If only they could shift their focus from exposing a student senator for being on a google doc with students they are supposed to represent to something slightly more substantive… like ADMINISTRATORS MAKING SENATORS SIGN A GAG ORDER AGAINST TALKING TO STUDENTS
WTF Bwog/ Spec? I hope you know that you have significantly damaged student’s last chance to save political activity/free speech on campus. Once that’s gone you will have nothing to write about and that will be the end of your shitty campus media roles
@um spec never printed the google doc in full, nor did they even imply who it could have been. the spec article says:
“…a fact perhaps aided by a confidential ‘Strategy Document’ circulated among leaders of several activist groups present to raise student numbers and coordinate questions.
The document, which was sent to Spectator, includes comments about internal discussions of the Senate Rules Committee, which would be a violation of Senate rules. A person familiar with senate proceedings said that ‘violating [senate] confidentiality regulations can lead to ramifications, including removal from the committee.'”
though it’s pretty clear now (and would have still been kinda obvious) that it was someone in the committee, the spec article doesn’t even imply that the mole was on the committee.
bwog’s coverage is one issue, but spec – and sam, one of the most thorough campus journalists out there – did no harm to free speech on campus.
@do better bwog Bwog, DONT infer who might be the author of a document 60+ people had access to based on an unsubstantiated tip.
Most of your articles are anonymous- how would you like it if students decided to infer which of your staff members wrote this shoddy piece of journalism and proceeded to malign his/ her name? Not cool.
@hilary duff As a student that actually support most of the opinions of the activists and less harsh sentencing for protestors, I’m angry that there was so much manipulation going on behind the scenes. The town hall was a farce. There was way too much clapping, too much cheering, and it detracted from the legitimate opinions of others on campus not involved in conspiring before the event.
I was hoping for a more varied opinions on the policy. The insular development of opinions is one of the worst aspects of activist groups on campus, and the town hall was their circus. I just wish there were more dissenting opinions during the town hall so we could have a fair two-sided discussion, rather than a fake one-way pep rally of senator schemes.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the same groups of activists come through and downvote legitimate opinions posted by their detractors. On Columbia’s campus, they are too many close-minded activists that often only quell intellectual debate rather than allowing a fair representation on opinions.
@EVERYONE I FOUND THE LEAK
@?? who
@hilary duff If you think I leaked it, then you’re out of luck. I wasn’t even invited to the doc :(
@Yes Yes Yes Yes
100%
@CC'15 completely agreed. thanks for saying this.
past senators have been shit on because they work too closely with the administration and don’t have students’ interests in mind, but current senators/student leaders are STILL trying to push an agenda, just a different one (and they don’t necessarily have all students’ best interests in mind, either).
what i would love to see is a truly open dialogue (if such thing exists)
@dont actually know sejal but heard her speak in the sga meeting this is horrible reporting, how did you just implicate people without ANY proof?
fuck you, bwog. free my fellow brown girl sejal and that other guy she works with!! they both clearly worked so hard on making people actually give a shit about this very serious on campus issue.
this is why we cant have nice things ugh
@Anonymous hey bwog could you put down the editing pen for one second so that each reader who arrives isn’t reading an entirely different fucking article than the last person? absolutely pathetic, i hate you this year
@lol same as Anonamoose. You prob not just edit this shit in direct response to the comments without noting that errors and bad unclear writing were made before. smdh bwog
@i mean.... truly though. the language even sounds like her.
@fuck off
@HI THERE Speaking as someone who has *very recently* started to actually take an interest in campus politics and the groups and students who engage in campus politics (who, not surprisingly, are the ones who may feel the adverse effects of this leak and this post) and attended the Town Hall on Friday.
It should be said, first, that this post is kind of garbage journalism. There is almost zero context given for the assembling of this document. The first paragraph even includes misleading information regarding the status of the Rules and the purpose of the Town Hall that was held yesterday (it actually kind of seems like the writer of this post doesn’t understand what the Rules are, what the Committee’s role is, and what the premise of the Town Hall was). To clarify: the Rules are *not* being actively revised at the present moment—part of the intention of the Town Hall was to get community feedback regarding the current state of the Rules (last revised in 1993 if I’m not mistaken). Since that was the basically unanimous opinion of the people who showed at the Town Hall (duh), the Committee will (should?) go forward and begin a drafting process that will take months. Any “definitive” changes to the Rules are going to be over an extended period of time with planned Town Halls along the way. This is some important context and should mitigate the kind of last-minute fever-pitch that is implied in the first paragraph of this post. The energy in the reproduced document, then, shouldn’t be construed to read as some kind of maniacal desperation that led to unethical action, as the post seems to paint it as. It is, rather, the energy of people who might give a fuck about the way that things happen at the school, and are coordinating in order to effectively communicate the ways in which they give a fuck to the people who are supposed to be there to represent that fuck giving.
This lazy journalism actually seems to be paradigmatic of the difficulties of campus organizing, and is representative of the exact problem that this collectively generated strategy attempted to mitigate: MOST people don’t know what is going on, ever! The correct sharing and organization of information is paramount to productive change. (Note the word productive in that sentence if you choose to point to the publishing of this post as meeting those standards.) If the people and publication that chose to publish this information can’t even take the time to look up extremely accessible information and organize it into a proper, *informative* piece of writing, why are they doing it at all?
Re: the potential “shilling” that was going on if a Senator was involved in the organizing of these groups in advance of the Town Hall. It does seem to me to be a bit of a non-issue. The university does, as someone pointed out, always have strategy in mind, and the encouraging (since I think planting seems to be a little stupid in this context given the fact that most of the people who asked the questions (and a lot more was said that is written up there) at the Town Hall would have been there speaking anyway) of these people to respond actively to the invitation to share their ideas seems like the responsibility of a representative, does it not? It doesn’t seem to me to signal anything like nefariousness to me: the ppl and groups on this doc are the ones who protest, are the ones who are engaged, are the ones who care about their rights to engage politically and critically on campus. It doesn’t really strike me as some kind of master-puppet scenario and the characterization of it as such is pretty farcical.
Regardless of whether any U Senate member is going to face disciplinary sanctions in the aftermath of this (which, by the way, Bwog, also begs for some detail—what rules were violated? where can they be read?), the takeaway from reading this document here for all who weren’t at the Town Hall is a) THE CONTENT of the questions and b) that ACTUAL PEERS of yours *do* know what the Rules are and mean and what is at stake in their potential revision. These are two extremely valuable resources for every member of the Columbia community and should merit more attention than what is being debated in these comments.
(P.S. I know this has been said a bunch already in the comments but if you even speed-read this shit it’s really obviously written by more than one person and the number of people who were on it is even listed (67-70). To clarify: that’s a ton of people w gmail addresses on an actively editable document, as opposed to a static list of questions distributed by one U Senator!)
@Anonamoose When you redact things, it’s common practice to *clearly* mark *everywhere* you redact things, instead of passing off a document with un-noted omissions as the original. Fucking Bwog.
@Prezbo Death to hipsters.
@The Author of this BWOG Post Should Immediately Resign What has been compromised in this whole affair is not the legitimacy of the review committee, nor the efforts of student activists to pursue egalitarian free-speech rights, but rather the credibility of BWOG’s present editorial board, which has revealed once again its penchant for attacking left-leaning groups operating within the University, without any substantive precedent or rationale.
Those who manage this superficial publication have already curtailed what little promise there was of formulating an appropriate set of protest regulations this academic year. Instead of reviewing the insights and criticisms presented by students at the town hall, BWOG has elected to slander the committee managing the proceedings. Fears expressed as to the lack of oversight in the review process have only been vindicated by the public reprimanding of student senators for ostensibly holding dialogues with their own constituencies.
Please recall as well that the student groups represented at yesterday’s meeting comprise the only individuals on Columbia’s campus for whom the review process presents any consequential changes in their living and working and practices. They have done exactly what anyone in their position would do: undergo rigorous preparation.
The author of this BWOG post has undercut valuable student dialogue in the most childish and reactionary of ways. Whatever waning trust I had in your journalistic qualifications is now gone. I recommend that you resign from your position on the editorial board, and adopt a life style of critical introversion.
As the old saying goes, ‘think before you speak’.
@Serpent The job of a journalist is to REPORT FACTS, NOT TO SUPPORT A POLITICAL AGENDA.
Seriously
@Serpent's Critic How do you select which facts to report? What motivations inform these decisions?
@Serpent You don’t pick which facts to report. You report all of them and let the readers draw their own conclusions. No leftist bias must be tolerated in journalism. If I wanted your opinion, I would have asked you for it. I don’t care what leftist journalists have to say; their opinion is worth zilch to me.
@uhm, wut It kinda seems like the type of journalism that is trying to make something out of nothing. Also could use a TL:DR version.
@Anna I agree that publishing the names of people is problematic, and I think it’s a good thing that they were redacted, if retroactively. However, I disagree with people who think that this shouldn’t be brought to light at all. This is news, no matter what your personal views are on the matter.
If we take a stand for transparency on this campus, we cannot be selective as to where we do or do not want it.
@Anonymous Thank you.
@Anonamoose It sounds like you’re being quite selective about what you think should be transparent…
@student I don’t understand – each person that asked a question had to state their name and affiliation for the public record – so that a transcript of the event could be distributed following the event. Bwog is bad for posting their names but Columbia isn’t??
@duh They consented to having their names tied with what they said publicly. This is a private document, and their names shouldn’t be associated with it without their consent.
@Alejandro Now that the names are down, the leak is a great read. It’s the skeleton of a great effort at exposing the hipocrisy of the prezbo administration and the subtle yet effective ways with which it silences students, faculty, workers and community members, discourages and endangers dissent to maintain white imperialism as the lion’s heart.
@BWOG RUN BY RACIST Bwog is one of the most pathetic news publications that unfortunately lacks integrity, compassion, and virtue. What was the point of this article? What value is there in outing and punishing members of the Columbia Community who are attempting to save the academic integrity of our university( if the claims your bias website produces are true). Bwog is a literary publication that needs to seriously be shut down they have jeopardized the safety of minority students multiple times on this website and that is specifically because the main editors of this publication are racists who enjoy putting the academic and physical safety of activists on campus in jeopardy. This is inherently bias those who have a say in what gets published and what does not are awful people who contribute nothing to the greater Columbia community. To the writers of BWOG you should
1, Question why you have decided to become a writer.
2. If the reason is at all humanitarian based you should immediately quit working for Bwog.
3. Join a political activist group on campus so that your time here will be worth something.
@Serpent 1. It’s not Bwog’s job to support your political views. It’s Bwog’s job to report campus news.
2. How does putting activists “in danger” (when they were breaking rules because the majority of students didn’t care about the rules to make everything go in their favor since the “random turnout” was only 20) threaten minorities? Care to explain that one? You seem to believe that your voice is the minority voice. Well, frankly quite a few people would beg to differ (such as Dr. Carson and Justice Thomas). You are appropriating the minority voice and telling minorities what they are allowed to believe and also that you speak for them. That is the REAL racism.
3. LOL, Bwog does not need to be shut down if it does not explicitly support leftism. What sort of totalitarian nonsense is this?
@Anonymous rabble rabble zionist conspiracy rabble rabble rabble
@CC 2015 This is really not a particularly big deal. Questions are planted in some form at forums at basically every institution; they’re just usually planted verbally and not in writing. The real issue here is just an aberrative lapse in judgment regarding the organizing mechanism.
@The Real Story Activists wrote a lot of those questions — S and J are in trouble foe breaking senate confidentiality rules. They’re in trouble because they didn’t buy the party line about how this was just to “update” the rules, and actually told the people they represent that their rights were in danger.
And now they might be suspended. It’s been years since we had student representatives that actually gave a shit about students and then other students screwed them over.
@Flora Additionally, why are the student names being published? Even despite them being first names, it’s not hard to identify the people in question.
Bad call Bwog.
@named you do understand that the students who asked questions did so at a public town hall, right? like the point is to be public.
@actually it’s a pretty serious concern for students. There’s no excuse to publish their names in this context, where they’re clearly working with other activists against the administration. We’ve all seen how friendly the admins are towards student activists.
@Flora So basically, Bwog is suggesting that the integrity of the town hall was compromised based off of an ANONYMOUS suggestion with absolutely no evidence?
@alejandro This is harassment. Solidarity with all those whose names appeared, I hope pieces of shit like the one hiding behind “awkward” don’t put you down
@wooow wait this is actually a PROBLEM. “most likely to sway swing votes”, literally they packed the room and planted questions…
fundamentally wrong.
it’s the same group os witch hunters on campus acting out and being overly aggressive. I’m so appalled but not surprised.
@dumb^ no one packed the room genius, anyone could have shown up. clearly campu activists were those who attended in the largest quantities because they care most about these issues that yes, will most likely directly affect them and not people like you who hide behind a computer to do your ranting and chanting.
students coming out to make their voices heard is what makes this school great, not what is “fundamentally wrong” or “actually a PROBLEM” with it.
@Anonymous “Pack the room” is verbatim in there…
@hilary duff Many students, who would have otherwise not have been interested in attending, were in the room just to fill seats. I saw it happening. A lot of students not paying attention, doing homework, etc.
@WHAT How dare student senators work with students they are supposed to be representing!!!!
–If the administration tries to fuck Singh and Odessky over, all hell will break loose.
@Serpent And what exactly are you going to do if the university decides to enforce the rules? Throw a tantrum on Low Steps? As if the rest of us will bother to listen, lol. We’ll just go to class
@Anonymous BWOG wtf why do you keep deleting comments???
@Bwog Also,
Julia Goodman, editor of Bwog, came onto the editorship following a series of events in which Bwog proved itself to be totally disloyal to the values of free speech and the politics of anti-sexism and anti-racism that the majority of the students on this campus support. Between the issue of a conflict of interest around a bwog staffmember convicted of sexual assualt and this fall’s failure to respect the privacy of certain students, editors Sarah Faith and Maud stepped down.
My understanding is that Goodman came on hoping to change the reputation and relationships the previous editors has ruined. Goodman’s intent to do so was clearly a farce. We can expect nothing from Bwog except a continued attack on students’ ability to advocate for themselves going forward.
@Anonymous Claire Friedman was the one that posted this
@Anonymous Putting a document into wordpress is different from being the one controlling what the content is.
@Anon Goodman was out of town all day yesterday without cell phone access. Why do you think this was posted yesterday?
@Anonymous because she told them to
@CC 15 This is a good post. This is what Bwog should be doing: writing the story behind the story. Not the spec news writeup or rehashing mass emails. Saying what actually drives these townhalls, and drive campus politics.
It’s not students! It’s right there in the document–“estimated random turnout”? 20. And that was no doubt high.
And here we see it: talented media manipulation by the student leaders who get quoted by spec et al.
For that reason I suspect that a lot of the above posters are the student leaders whose shilling was exposed here.
And for that reason you’re going to see a lot of comments saying I’M DISAPPOINTED, BWOG IS MEAN!!! or, NOT NEWS!!!!!
But that just means it was news.
@CC 15 addendum: I bet emails and texts are going around saying, upvote these, downvote those…
happy saturday night!
@I mean This is pretty clearly the collective effort of a lot of campus organizers not the work of any one student. Tone it down.
@didn't show up The breadth of the doc implies that it was clearly crowd-sourced. Even if it weren’t, it’s not like the strategy doc prevents students from saying anything else that they might want to; student groups can’t enforce it. So I don’t see anything wrong with providing people with “optional but encouraged” resources–the same way political campaigns do for volunteers. The University definitely has a defined strategy, and they probably enforce it much more strictly than these folks. Plus, given the fact that the student groups only expected 20 random concerned students to come (I’m one of the random concerned students who didn’t…) I’m pretty glad someone organized this, and I wish I had gone and seen students make these excellent points. I think it would be unfair for the U Senator in question to be punished.
@Anon Bwog has consistently shown a pattern of bias against protester — from outing the student who felt like her life was in danger based on a photograph of her remaining online (whose name they’ve now published, to now publishing all the names of students associated with the town hall without at least having the balls to write the name of the accused senator in their own editorial statement.
I expect so much better from a campus publication that purports to care not only about the school but the students that go to it.
@mischaracterization “According to a tip we received earlier today, many of these opinions came from the same source: a U Senator who ‘kept a running google doc…used to feed lines to activists.'”
Tipsters’ opinions should NOT characterize Bwog’s analysis; this is very poorly written. A cursory look at the document clearly indicates that it was run by a group of people who did their thinking together. No ‘shepherding’ of any sort happened.
Whatever the obligation of a news source is to report tips, it should at least investigate and think before publishing. I’m ashamed.
@Anon Also: if it was a google doc, there should be a pretty clear sense of who edited what and added what?
@Anonymous where does it even say that the committee member wrote the questions? i see no proof of that here.
@hilary duff They got the google doc, which means they got names.
@I mean This was highly effective and a perfect demonstration of free speech and organizing. So now bwog is up is hung then for exercising their free speech? Wow.
@alejandro wikileaks took great care to analyze and purge documents of names of agents of empire and informants, but it still got Chelsea Manning life in solitary confinement.
Bwog on the other hand, stinks of Mccarthyism, trying to expose activists to the risks of harassment and persecution for the work they do for the sake of us all.
It’s a shame on all of us as students to have boot-licking editors running a violent tabloid and hosting racists to rant and hurt in anonymity.
@??? So a student risked suspension to help protect free speech on campus, and you fucked them over by publishing this?
Wow. You should be ashamed of yourself, Bwog.
@F And so the students organized to, in effect, protest the way that protests are being dealt with by the University. What’s the problem with that?
@F And the fact that they did this is a problem because? While it is a little bit methodical, it’s a good strategy and they effectively raised a good amount of questions.
10/10 to everyone who spoke.
@tracked be more of an obv shill
@hilary duff If you were at the town hall, you’d realize that the number of students convinced to attend actually overrepresented the general campus concern over this issue. Moreover, the quantity of seeded questions and the overzealous applause meant that fewer students from outside groups were able to discuss their opinions. A large number of the most well received questions were pre-determined in this document. That means that other students had less of a chance to voice legitimate opinions, and those whose opinions didn’t align with the activists were less welcome among the crowd of single-minded activists. To me, this defeated the very purpose they were fighting for– freedom of speech.
@Ok Despite being an unequivocal supporter of all of the groups who were responsible for most of the comments, i do hear your point about people form the broader community not having their voice heard. I’m really unconvinced that’s the fault of the organizers, though, or the fault of this document. Also the word “convinced” is really inaccurate in this context. I think the problem with not having people from the broader community who may not have had any direct personal or political investment in the discussion were underrepresented not because they were outnumbered but because either don’t care enough or don’t have someone who can “convince” them that it’s worthwhile to show up and ask questions at these things. I would be interested to hear in more detail how you felt unable or unwelcome to speak as someone not affiliated or directly supportive of these groups… that would be enlightening for all I’m sure.