A year in columns

It is easy to remember the 2008-2009 academic year as a series of snapshots: the ServiceNation forum on Sept. 11, the ROTC controversy, the election of President Obama, the conflict in Gaza.

Such a recollection, however, precludes a more interesting look at the academic year. Perhaps we should remember this year not as a string of events but rather as a collection of continually recurring thoughts and trends.

Running on average a column from one of 20 different columnists every day this year, Spectator Opinion has documented the ideas that have occupied the attention of those students who have chosen to speak up for the past two semesters. And while major events certainly left their mark on the columns, certain themes also recurred, ones that offer a distinctive lens through which we can view this academic year.

One such theme was identity. A heightened discourse on questions of identity in all its forms featured across columns this year. Marissa Mazek fought unabashedly against the silence surrounding psychological and eating disorders, exposing these problems as the “invisible yet ubiquitous” elephant in Columbia’s rooms. Demanding an open discussion of their implications, she sought to tear down the self-sustained stereotype of Ivy Leaguers as immune from such complex problems. Dan Blank also countered the conventional, stereotypical portrayal of Ivy League success by reflecting on his accidental audition for The Merchant of Venice, suggesting that first-years get off the straight but boring path to law school and be open to new and unexpected possibility.

Yet columnists did not confine themselves only to campus identity. Whether in discussing the dissonance between his heritage and his Western upbringing or in critiquing the roles of race, economics, and culture in urban planning, Andrew Lyubarsky sought “truth beyond kitsch and myth” in exploring “where we come from” and in considering the implications of the Manhattanville expansion. Beyond local concerns, Anthony Kelley considered racial themes on a national scale, pondering the question “Is Barack Obama black enough?” and arguing that “by better understanding the question, we are better suited to answer it.”

Perhaps because of the centrality of the election of President Obama to this year’s academic experience, racial identity indeed proved to be a popular topic. Like Kelley, Nicole Winter discussed race, though from a different perspective, likening the common dual racial identity she and President Obama share to a “‘b’twixt and between’ mindset of biracial people [that] is now becoming more typical of the American mindset.” And after launching his column series with a critique of Obama’s image and identity, Chris Morris-Lent critically analyzed the role of economics and race in college admissions, censuring Columbia for creating a diversity that is in appearance only.

Besides identity and race, columnists explored other issues at the forefront of national attention. Having blamed stifling political correctness at Columbia for causing the university to “lose touch with reality,” conservative columnist Jon Hollander pointed out that banning trays at John Jay Dining Hall is an example of “enviro-radicalism” and of other “overly simplistic and ideological policies.” Kate Redburn then upbraided Hollander for his environmental views in a letter to the editor, and joint columnists Redburn and Sarah Leonard then wrote their own commentary on producer and consumer rights, demanding that Columbia put its money where its mouth is and implement business policies that prohibit purchases from unethical corporations. In this discussion, they echoed the concern of Becky Davies, who in one column called attention to the dissonance between Columbia’s eco-friendly façade and its actual paper use practices, though Davies ultimately acknowledged in her final column that at least now, unlike in generations past, society is open to fully engaged discourse on the problems plaguing our communities.

With such criticism of administration being a common motif across columns, it is not surprising that commentary on good governance also recurred throughout the semester. Adil Ahmed, CCSC vice president of policy, discussed campus politics in his columns, promoting the role of student councils and drawing parallels between campus governance and governance at large. MaryAlice Parks took her perspective on government beyond Columbia and kept New York authorities in check as she slammed Mayor Bloomberg for visiting Israel after the Gaza conflict and analyzed the implications of the recession for the education budget. Rudi Batzell took a scholarly perspective, looking back in time to make sense of politics today by tracing the history of health care to justify and demand immediate health care reform. And Vedant Misra and Adrian Haimovich demanded that greater attention and monetary support be given to science at all levels, from our campus to the Oval Office, in order to secure a more sustainable future.

While columnists’ criticisms of administrators were always subdued though often indignant, this cannot be said of readers’ reactions to columnists. Lauren Salz’s bold defense of conservative perspectives on taxation and emergency contraception certainly sparked disagreement. But perhaps the 31 commenters on Salz’s “Think twice about Plan B” should have heeded the advice of language columnist Alexi Shaw before they vituperated the executive director of the College Republicans. Granted, many readers seemed subconsciously to agree with Shaw that “it is time…for folks to start insulting each other again” as they challenged Salz’s conservative perspective. Tragically few commenters, however, took Shaw’s witty instructions in “Insults and the English Language” on how to hurl imprecations with class and intelligence, and perhaps ended up demonstrating how “uncontrolled anger can appear buffoonish.” In this way, columnists offered insight on the state of affairs at Columbia not only through their own ideas but also through the responses they evoked.

The expression of uncontrolled anger facilitated by anonymous commenting and new media did not escape the analysis of Spec columnists. Philip Petrov slammed snarky writers who believe that their polemical style can somehow “revitalize our political discourse” as he exposed the neuroses Columbians disguise when they heatedly debate “politics” and “justice” and “intellectualism.” Religion columnist Eric Hirsch agreed, arguing that vitriolic Bwog comments create a climate of intolerance that threatens openness and diversity. Hirsch preferred the seemingly mawkish but actually endearing exclamation points of Hillel’s new blog, And Thou Shalt Blog. And finally, every other Friday during the second semester, study-abroad columnist Daniel D’Addario gave Columbians a brief respite from the controversies swirling around them as he let them vicariously travel across Europe and stroll along the Scottish shores.

Of course, such a cursory review of two semesters’ worth of columns will inevitably omit some of the important discussions on the pages of this newspaper. To condense the ideas of 20 columnists into a few sentences is reductionist. But however inadequate such retrospection may be, it does provide a brief glimpse at the academic year from a unique perspective—one that only biweekly columns in a campus newspaper can offer.