Transparent buildings, opaque plans

Last week, I got a reality check about the “transparency” of Columbia University’s Manhattanville expansion plans. I coordinated with Professor Paul Martin, who teaches a class on human rights theory and practice, to plan an event in which students could view the expansion from both sides. Two members of Columbia’s Office of Government & Community Affairs would introduce Columbia’s current expansion model, two members of the Coalition to Preserve Community (CPC) would talk about the community of West Harlem’s concerns about the proposed plan, and then the floor would be open to probing questions from my newly enlightened classmates. With this format, students would gain a critical view on the expansion and would engage in key discussions about how to ensure that Columbia’s plans would be more on par with the West Harlem community’s ideas for the expansion.

Fast forward to class time on the day of the event. I arrived a couple of minutes early with a video camera so that the interesting discussion could be shown to other students, some of who might become future trustees to whom the school will turn for expansion funds. My friend and camera operator, Ben, came with me. Professor Martin gave us some rather interesting news. Apparently, the administration had told him the day before that they “did not want to be in the same room [as community members] debating the issues.” I was stunned to hear this, but the real clincher came afterwards. When I broke the news to Mario Mazzoni, one of the members of the CPC, he simply grinned, proceeded to pull out extra materials for the community presentation from his bag, and told me, “It doesn’t come as a huge surprise that [the administration] refused to participate in a forum where community members are given an equal opportunity to voice their position ... [Columbia representatives] never engage with the community in a genuine manner because they don’t feel that they have to.”

That day, Professor Martin played the role of the Columbia administration and treated us to a cursory presentation from the “Manhattanville Expansion” section of the University Web site. Then, two students discussed the West Harlem community concerns regarding primary and secondary displacement, unjust use of eminent domain, and environmental issues.

The administration agreed to give us their presentation at a later date. When I showed up again with Ben and my video camera in tow, surprise number two occurred. Professor Martin informed me that neither my camera nor Ben was permitted in class under the terms of negotiation with the administration. In addition, the two Columbia representatives who showed up refused to answer the class’s questions directly. We had critical queries about the proposed expansion plans in a human rights context, but the presenters focused their presentation simply on discussing the positives of the construction plans. They merely lauded the construction of buildings made out of transparent glass certified by the Leadership in Environmental Energy Design. Now don’t get me wrong—I do support the expansion, but I want to promote transparency during the expansion process, not just use it as a building material.

I came to Columbia because I loved the fact that the school “support[s] education through service.” The members of the administration addressed the concerns we heard from community members with long statements about how the expansion will, indeed, serve the community. I find it quite hypocritical, however, to pat ourselves on the back for providing math tutoring sessions to children of the residents we will be displacing with our current expansion model. The University should have open discussions with members from multiple West Harlem community groups in order to formulate a plan favorable to both the University and the community. Negotiations, documents, and meeting times should be publicized so that anyone who wants to attend and voice an opinion is able to do so. I know you think I’m an idealist who has never before hosted an open-forum discussion, but I understand (as well as anyone that has ever participated in any sort of student group) that a collective decision takes a painfully long time to make. However, I believe that we owe community groups some consideration. And we, as students, must hold our university accountable for its actions and demand transparency in all expansion-related negotiations so community concerns will be listened to and accounted for. Then, and only then, can the University pledge to properly “serve the community.”

The author is a Barnard College first-year. She is a member of Student Coalition on Expansion and Gentrification.