During the first Comhairle of the year, a motion condemning the Dual BA program with Columbia was passed. Harry Johnston, chair of BDS, said it was the first step in a wider campaign to see the end of the program. This motion was criticised by Dual BA students currently at Columbia in an article in the Sundial titled, “Dear Trinity College Dublin Students’ Union: Hands Off the Dual BA”, which argues that the actions of the Students’ Union seeks to “control” students.
While the article accuses the Students’ Union of having an inadequate understanding of the Dual BA program, the article too misrepresents the motivations and values of the SU to paint them as an organization puppeteering students’ ability to make their own decisions. The condemnation of the Dual BA program has no impact on current students and their ability to continue with their path of study, but takes into consideration the students who have appealed to the SU for support. In light of the condemnation, students of the Dual BA program whose degrees were withheld by Columbia were finally awarded degrees by Trinity.
The Sundial is correct in saying that Columbia’s values go beyond hollow words on webpages and are constituted by their student body and the University’s actions, but are mistaken in assuming that the action of the Students’ Union is to condemn the Dual BA without considering the values of the University. America has always positioned itself as being the torchbearer of democracy, including the values of peaceful protest. Criticism should be levied against the University’s management for punishing their students for participating in democratic actions rather than against TCDSU for protecting its students against their constitutional violations.
Participating in peaceful protest, whether it be for Palestine or the environment or any other social cause, is a personal choice that students make. Whether the University agrees or not is not a matter of actionable offence. Students who aren’t involved in the political sphere are entirely unaffected by both Columbia’s yielding to the authoritarian government in the US as well as TCDSU’s campaign against the program. Protecting its students from violations of their rights is a burden that shouldn’t be, but still is, being shouldered by the TCDSU when it should be a matter of concern for Columbia’s management.
A second year Dual BA student who chose to remain anonymous provided a comment to The University Times. She believed that the condemnation of the program had no significant consequence on students who chose not to participate in particular political movements: “This motion makes no material difference to currently enrolled Dual BA students who wish to keep their head down and stay their course. I see this as a careful consideration of all students in the Dual BA, not an attempt to control us.” She also outlined the benefits of the condemnation to students enrolled in the Dual BA: “The campaign could potentially allow for Dual BA students to return to Trinity to finish their degree rather than losing both due to the politics of Columbia’s administration.” Another important point she underscored was that Columbia’s approach to student politics was an attempt at policing the kind of politics that were permissible in Columbia: “Further, prospective Irish Dual BA students would now be expected to disclose five years of social media history or be denied visas. When added to the prohibitive price, this is essentially a program curated for and available only to Americans and those with a certain politic.” She is currently attempting to disenroll from the Dual BA program and become a four-year Trinity student.
Another student, Vanessa Chesley, who is currently studying European Studies at Trinity and will continue to go on to do Political Science at Columbia also supports the condemnation of the Dual BA program and also believes that “Columbia needs to cut all ties from Israel.” She agrees with the condemnation as it “warns” students about “Columbia’s complicity and partnership with Israel.” While agreeing with Sundial on the fact that students “are making conscious decisions on whether or not to do the Dual BA.” However, she also said that she doesn’t believe that the condemnation motion is “controlling” students, rather “it’s just making them think more critically about their choices.” Furthermore, the article “gave the SU a lot more power than it actually has.” Chesley’s decision, like many students, to continue at Columbia doesn’t signal a disagreement with the condemnation of the Dual BA.
The Sundial, on Education Officer Buster Whaley’s statement that it would be “irresponsible to send students to Columbia” mistakenly argues that the condemnation was an imposition of the union’s moral values rather than an appeal by Columbia students to the SU. Firstly, this argument can be flipped to apply to Columbia as well. TCDSU does not have nearly as much institutional power as Columbia University, which is choosing to withhold degrees and suspend students from expressing their political views, essentially gatekeeping and controlling the student body of Columbia. Columbia’s violation of students’ First Amendment rights is a far worse offence than the TCDSU’s discouragement of participation in the Dual BA program. Secondly, the second part of Whaley’s comments also highlighted the academic irresponsibility of Columbia for withholding degrees, stating “you get two degrees when you finish but if one of those institutions blocks you from getting their degree you are blocked from getting any degree”, this being irresponsible solely in terms of academic welfare.
Finally, some credit needs to be given to TCDSU for attempting to correct the actions of Columbia’s discriminatory punishments. Students and parents within the US are unable to gain recourse for expressing certain political views. In a Guardian article, parents of Columbia students expressed their discontent with the actions that Columbia had taken and, similar to TCDSU’s campaign to attempt to “end” the Dual BA program, Jeff Melnick and Juliette Lamalle go a step further and discourage students from joining Columbia and Barnard altogether: “We believe it is time to sound the alarm about Columbia and Barnard. If you are a prospective student and believe in the right to free speech and assembly, have a strong moral compass, or are nonconformist in any substantial way, you may want to look for an alternative.”
I would go a step further and argue that it is entitled to assert what programs a college can and cannot choose to pursue or discontinue based on the concerns of its own student body. Columbia might not be familiar with the idea of listening to the voices of their students but Trinity owes it to the TCDSU to be the body that looks out for and addresses the concerns of its students.
