Menu CATEGORIES

Connect with us

CATEGORIES Menu
All Articles

SGA Learns How To Intimidate Barnard Administration

SGA Candidates Forum is tonight, April 9, at 8 pm on the second floor of Diana! This is your chance to enjoy some free Pinkberry and to inform yourself of all the candidates’ platforms before the election on Wednesday, April 10. Bureau Chief Leena Chen will likely be found in a corner, nursing her cup of pomegranate froyo. 

Last night, in the stuffy McIntosh Dining Room, Provost Linda Bell and Vice Provost Saskia Hamilton engaged with SGA in a tense Q&A session. It quickly became clear that there was a disconnect between the administrators, who were eager to discuss their work in creating more Barnard-Columbia pathway degree opportunities and in designing Barnard’s new computer science curriculum and the SGA representatives, who were mainly interested in voicing their concerns about diversity, inclusion, and representation in Barnard classrooms, curriculum, and faculty.

Throughout the meeting, Provost Bell deflected many SGA representatives’ concerns by suggesting that most proposed solutions are out of her control. For example, she claimed that the Provost’s Office also values “Faculty who have diverse views, backgrounds, and teaching methods” (Bell) and she explained that they are ultimately the ones responsible for all faculty hiring decisions. However, she also added that these faculty search procedures are initiated and conducted by individual departments, which seemed to absolve her office of any responsibility in increasing diversity in the faculty.

Toward the end of the meeting, Representatives Tirzah Anderson and Tina Gao demonstrated the need for inclusivity and diversity by bringing up their own personal anecdotes about tenured professors who have used noninclusive, marginalizing, and hateful language in the classroom. Initially, Provost Bell dismissively referred them to various other campus offices, such as Title IX and Ombuds, but many SGA representatives remained dissatisfied that the Provost’s Office was not taking action. Finally, after Representative Solace Mensah-Nahr continued to press her, Provost Bell proposed to hold biweekly open office hours to directly hear from students about their personal experiences in the classroom. This offer was met with unanimous cheers and snaps and, thankfully, the tension was lifted, ending this week’s meeting on a positive note.

Random People via Pixabay

Write a comment

Your email address will not be published.

 

2 Comments

  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous Diversity and inclusion initiatives are fascism pretending to be compassion.

  • Hey snowflakes says:

    @Hey snowflakes >Representatives Tirzah Anderson and Tina Gao demonstrated the need for inclusivity and diversity by bringing up their own personal anecdotes about tenured professors who have used noninclusive, marginalizing, and hateful language in the classroom.

    Could you CRY MOAR? 😂😂🤣🤣🤣

  • Have Your Say

    What should you actually Venmo people for?

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

    Recent Comments

    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
    Can’t wait until Uris becomes a College building in 2022. (read more)
    Bwoglines: Finding The Future Edition
    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