Columbia plays politics with the law

This year, I made a New Year’s resolution more difficult than usual—to think less cynically about politics. While people tell me that college produces naïve, idealistic graduates—those who venture into the world only to denounce it for all its moral corruption—Columbia has made me decidedly more cynical. My political science major has taught me that self-interest is everybody’s underlying motive, and this intuition has been too often confirmed by following city and University controversies over the past few years.

My resolution crumbled within the first few weeks of the year, as the controversy over eminent domain in Manhattanville escalated. Columbia’s reaction to the recent court ruling on eminent domain has been difficult to regard in any way but cynically. In politics, individuals maneuver political processes in efforts to serve their own advantages, and empirical evidence tells us that we cannot expect them to be constrained by concerns about ethics or costs to others. My error was to be optimistic enough to expect that a university and a university president would be excepted from this rule.

In line with old-fashioned strategic behavior, both sides of the expansion controversy have done whatever was necessary to clinch victory. Both sides have distorted the truth and paid people to do it for them—Columbia used the PR firm Sunshine, Sachs & Associates, and property owner Nick Sprayregen hired lobbyist Richard Lipsky.

Anti-expansion groups like the Coalition to Preserve Community call the project a “land-grab plan” that has succeeded due to a “fixed process” and “back-door deals,” when in truth, it is supported by almost all of the community’s elected officials who were just re-elected in November.

Endless reports of the lack of campus research and classroom space leave no doubt that the expansion is crucial to future students, faculty, and the global reach of University research. Additionally, Columbia has pledged hundreds of millions of dollars through a variety of community benefits to West Harlem, including affordable housing and a new charter school. Regardless of one’s feelings about urban development and gentrification, the expansion’s benefits package will undeniably be indispensable to the local community.

The tragedy—to turn idealist for a moment—is that this crucial project has been marred by the mismanagement of eminent domain. As the state moves toward an appeal of last month’s ruling against eminent domain, University President Lee Bollinger has used the University’s institutional might to coerce the Court of Appeals into a favorable ruling. There is no way for the community to receive the benefits money other than with Columbia’s expansion, and all the big players know it—not least Bollinger. As the state moves toward its appeal, Bollinger has threatened to halt the Manhattanville expansion if the court forbids Columbia to use eminent domain.

The absurdity of this story is in Bollinger’s assertion that eminent domain is a necessary part of the expansion plan. In truth, the property that would be seized constitutes no more than 10 percent of the proposed new campus. University officials claim eminent domain is necessary to build a large underground space that would contain support facilities, but they could feasibly alter their plans accordingly, even if it meant added expense. Acting in the interests of expediency is not adequate justification for Bollinger’s actions.

Bollinger has essentially tied the fate of a West Harlem community to a judicial decision. With his comments in the media, he is signaling to the appellate judges that with an unfavorable ruling, they will deprive both the city of a tremendous development project and the community of hundreds of millions of private dollars. Whether or not the threat is credible, Bollinger is unfairly pressuring the judiciary into deciding a case on factors other than its merits.

If we are to think as cynics, Bollinger’s remarks are rational, strategic, and quite unsurprising—we might even admire him for being so shrewd. But—no matter how much the affairs of Washington, Albany, or City Hall may make an onlooker cynical—it is reasonable to expect a nonprofit institution like a university to take a moral stance above the political fray. Bollinger’s attempts at intimidation, quite unfortunately, make arguments about the expansion’s benefit to the community irrelevant, narrowing the present issue to an unconscionable interference with the judiciary’s independence. If I were an idealist, I might be outraged. I might expect a major educational institution to avoid the sordidness of the political arena and a world-famous legal scholar to respect the institutions of law. It seems like Columbia has once again pushed me toward cynicism.

Daniel Amzallag is a Columbia College junior majoring in political science and English. Outside the Gates runs alternate Tuesdays. opinion@columbiaspectator.com

Tags: Opinion, Daniel Amzallag, campus politics, Manhattanville expansion, N.Y. State Senate, Outside the Gates, President Bollinger