Criticism in a major key

In a Nov. 29, 2009 op-ed, “Orchestral Dissent,” I wrote that the Columbia University Orchestra should not use students from Juilliard when Columbia students have auditioned for their seats. I wanted to say that the practice harms the educational experience of the orchestra, but I got lost in my frustration, connecting the policy to “dishonesty” and “plagiarism.” The wording was wrongly accusatory and harmful. I apologize to the course instructor Jeff Milarsky, his students, and Columbia’s music administration—and I retract the article.

Dr. Aaron Fox, chair of the Columbia music department, replied that my article was factually incorrect and that “the Juilliard students in the CUO are perfectly entitled to be there as participants in a formal joint degree program between Columbia and Juilliard.” My article did not refer to these joint-degree students because I did not intend the argument to apply to them. In this respect, my article erred in clarity, but not in fact, for not all Juilliard students in CUO are “participants in a formal joint degree program.” A Juilliard brass player in CUO from 2007-2009 confirms that neither he nor any Juilliard brass players in CUO since 1997 were part of a joint program. Further, the joint program serves undergraduates. Some of the Juilliard students playing in CUO were graduates, who cannot be part of a program that awards Bachelor’s degrees.

I hope my apology can refocus attention on the positive goal of finding the best policy. Briefly, I submit these facts to that end. The orchestra is a 1000-level class. Those Columbia students who audition for “open” seats without competition from other Columbia students and who are “replaced” by non-joint-degree Juilliard students play brass instruments. Brown, Cornell, and Penn, the other Ivy-League institutions that offer orchestra as a class, have 17, 13, and nine brass players in their orchestras, respectively. This year CUO only has five—though it is encouraging that this is four greater than what it had two years ago. Among other things, we might ask if the orchestra’s stated mission of reaching the “most challenging” level fits its role as a 1000-level course. We might also ask if anything can be learned from the enrollment standards at Brown, Cornell, and Penn. The length limit of this piece cannot do justice to the complexity of the issue, so I invite Dr. Milarsky, Dr. Fox, and interested students to a more thorough exchange.

The issue should matter to Columbia as a whole. The issue of some students not getting into an orchestra may seem trivial to others. But the orchestra is a course, and even one course that deviates from the standards of other courses at Columbia detracts from every point of credit awarded to every student. Further, the issue speaks to putting performance excellence above doing the best with what you have—a dilemma that challenges universities and students in countless other ways, especially those subjected to the competitiveness of New York City.

I made a mistake in how I first offered my views, yet I worry that the mistake was not totally exceptional—that hurtful sensationalism too often infects the way students speak about education. In a way, this is Columbia’s claim to fame. It has a history of failing to mediate disputes between students and “the powers that be.” I regret having extended that story. Now I want to end it. Students here care about their experiences. We have ideas to improve it, and we should distill our ideas from the crude oil of animosity. We can make this school a forum where publishing student concerns will not result in discord, where students and teachers can learn from each other.

The author is a Columbia College junior majoring in history.