Over the last forty years, Barnard’s relationship with Columbia has morphed from vague association to tight affiliation. Administrators on both sides of Broadway have said that the relationship between Barnard and Columbia is strong, if constantly confusing to all involved.
As Debora Spar takes over the institution, continuing to work to define the relationship, especially among students, promises to be a vital part of her role.
For the past 108 years, a stack of papers have glued Barnard and Columbia together. Formally called the intercorporate agreement, the document has been renegotiated every five to 10 years. This constant reevaluation, which seems to put the relationship permanently in flux, is perhaps a reason why students have so much difficulty pinning it down. That’s not the case, administrators say.
“These agreements are set up so they are periodically reviewed, but of the list of things that keep me up at night, the Barnard-Columbia relationship is just not one of them,” Spar said. “There’s always going to be some tensions when you have two very different institutions in such a close partner, but I don’t see any problems lurking there that are worrying me.”
The contract dates back to 1900, when Columbia and Barnard signed the first intercorporate agreement, crystallizing an affilitation that allowed Barnard to maintain a separate faculty and develop its own curriculum while still granting Columbia diplomas and access to a research university. A contract renegotiation in 1973 set the groundwork for the relationship as it stands today—in which cross-registration between the schools is assumed, as is some Columbia involvement in the Barnard tenure process.
“Our relationship with Columbia and our status as an affiliated institution can really be dated there into modern times. The relationship was far less integrated before that,” described Robert McCaughey, Barnard history professor and author of the book “Stand Columbia.”
The agreement was most notably evaluated in 1983, when Barnard president Ellen Futter renegotiated the contract when Columbia began to accept undergraduate women. At a time when other women’s colleges were integrating with co-ed schools, Barnard maintained its status as an all-women’s college.
“All-male institutions were going co-ed and that in turn led to a rethinking of the relationship,” said Futter, now the President of the Museum of Natural History.
“The first year after 1983 was hard,” said Rosalind Rosenberg, Barnard History professor, and author of “Changing the Subject: How the Women of Columbia Shaped the Way We Think About Sex and Politics.” Economic hardship in New York City had taken its toll and Barnard, like Columbia, had difficulty fundraising.
“It did raise some serious questions about Barnard’s long-term viability, which I think were pretty much answered by the end of Ellen Futter’s presidency,” McCaughey said.
Rosenberg attributed Barnard’s survival to what Futter called a “multiple gas stations on the same corner” mentality—each school brought something different to the table. At Barnard, Columbia had an already well-established women’s college, which helped in the school’s transition from all-male to co-ed. And in its close relationship with Columbia, Barnard became for some a more desirable college, offering a small college with the resources of a large research university.
That debate culminated in the 1983 agreement between Barnard and Columbia “in which both institutions continued to flourish and lead in the world of higher education,” Futter said.
McCaughey said he has “misgivings” about whether Barnard would have been able to fully survive without the 1983 renegotiation: “It’s hard to imagine Barnard as well positioned as it is today without that...Barnard is the place that it is today because of its relationship with Columbia.”
Today’s agreement mostly reflects the arrangements hammered out in the 1970s and 1980s, although students have historically found defining the relationship difficult. Though more Columbia than Barnard students used to cross Broadway for class, the situation is now reversed. And Barnard continues to pay up for use of Columbia resources, which cost Barnard almost $3 million in 2007.
Former Barnard president Judith Shapiro said collaboration between the two faculties is a strength of the arrangement. The best use of the relationship, she said, was to “see that you’re coordinating your faculty hiring, make the best use of making appointments.”
“The benefit and dependency can go both ways,” she said. “At every level of the administration, to have people working well together, the provost, information technology, all of that is very important.”
But, she acknowledged, “in terms of visibility, the Columbia relationship is such that sometimes people are confused, so it’s always a challenge for Barnard as it enjoys this relationship with Columbia to also have the world be clear about its status as an independent women’s college.”
Columbia Provost Alan Brinkley said his dealings with Barnard faculty most frequently regarded tenure—Barnard faculty also receive tenure at Columbia—and that his relationship with the school has always been easy. “As for the Barnard-Columbia relationship, it runs for itself,” Brinkley said.
University President Lee Bollinger said it was smooth sailing when he and former Barnard President Judith Shapiro renegotiated the contract in 2003.
While the relationship is stable on an administrative level, Spar may continue to face the challenge of explaining it to students, who seem continuously confused about the status of the affiliation. Last year the Student Government Association proposed distributing a pamphlet explaining the affiliation to recently admitted Barnard students.
Still, it remains to be seen what mark Spar will make on the long-standing relationship.
“Every period is a little bit different,” Futter said.
