Size Leads to Divisions Within Dems

To facilitate its diverse constituency, the Columbia University College Democrats has been gradually developing sub-groups to promote activism directed at specific causes.

But as the largest political group on campus, it often finds itself between a rock and a hard place.

Many members want the group to take a more active stance, but by doing so, the Dems risk facing criticism that it inaccurately represents its constituencies.

With the creation of the Activist Council two years ago, “the entire organization has taken on activism as its main focus,” said Jonathan Backer, CC ’10 and the club’s media director. The Activist Council “is run by consensus, so everyone has to agree or at least be comfortable with the type of event that we’re doing,” he said.

Most recently, the activist council fought for the passage of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program through phone calls to congressmen. And in March of this year, the Democrats supported Senator Russ Feingold’s, D-Wisc., Iraq Redeployment Act of 2007, which called for a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. “We put out all of the plans that were being discussed before the body,” Backer said. “We debated and discussed until we came to a consensus on what we wanted to support, and that turned out to be the Feingold bill.”

But on other issues, the Dems have found themselves at an impasse when trying to reach consensus. Last year, the group waffled on whether or not to join in sponsoring the February walkout against the Iraq War, and the group was still working last night on its response to this Friday’s speech by polarizing conservative figure David Horowitz, CC ’59.

Even when the group has made a stance, some say that its decisions have caused it to lose general support. “When they do things like endorse certain withdrawal policy, like the Feingold bill, of course they’re alienating people,” said Chris Kulawik, CC ’08, and president of the Columbia University College Republicans. “But they have the very nice luxury of being on the Columbia campus where there are so many Democrats, so even if they alienate a large membership they’re still going to have thousands of supporters.”

“There are some people who would rather we weren’t supporting such a short-term withdrawal plan, but they understood where the organization was coming from,” Backer said. “We have to make decisions. It’s consensus-driven but at the end of the day we had to make the decision.”

The Dems have also faced criticism for reacting to actions by the College Republicans rather than setting their own agenda. The highest-profile speaking event put on by the Dems since 2004 was Nancy Pelosi’s April 2005 speech in Low Library. Since then, the Republicans have sponsored events with Minuteman Project founder Jim Gilchrist, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, two speeches by Horowitz, and an event with former members of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the Hitler Youth, among others. In the 2005-2006 academic year, the Dems’ largest event was the protest of Ashcroft’s speech.

“There are a lot of conservative Democrats and a lot of people in College Democrats who would rather work with Republicans and actually get things done, rather than get the very ideological approach of just bashing them,” Kulawik said.

Condemnation of Republican politics has often characterized the Democrats’ events. During an Activist Council meeting on October 14, one attendant described an event last year against climate change in which members wore masks of President Bush and hit globes with sticks.

Members present at Sunday’s Activist Council meeting discussed whether to use critical images of Republican politicians on flyers around campus, arguing between “not focusing on the issue” and “being critical of our leaders.”

Regarding Israel, the Democrats have also taken a mitigating stance, causing conflict among members. “We’ve left that to the groups that focus on Israel policy,” Backer said. “We’ve taken a consistent stance that we’re for a two-state solution and that we are furious with the Bush administration for failing to bring both sides together. We don’t think that failure to bring both sides together is being pro-Israel—we think that it’s anti-Israel and anti-Palestinian.”

The Pro-Israel Progressives, now an independent organization that was originally a sub-group of the Democrats, split off because the College Democrats did not have “a unified view on Israel,” said Mike Schwartz, GS/JTS ’09 and president of the organization. “They still don’t have a blanket statement on support for Israel.”

“They’re doing their best not to alienate members, and I think that’s very important,” Schwartz added. “They try to allow for the body members to have a range of opinions.”

It was the group’s stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that contributed to the College Democrats’ withdrawal of support at last year’s anti-war walkout.

“The biggest thing that they’ve [the College Democrats have] done showing support for Israel was when Israel was at the center of the reason they left the CCAW [Columbia Coalition Against the War]. I supported that decision, and I appreciate that they felt it,” Schwartz said.

“It was important that we try to find common ground against the war on campus, but it became very clear that the issue with the Coalition was that we felt like there was a lack of departmentalization on issues,” Backer said.

Members of CCAW declined to comment on this issue.

After some dispute, CCAW and College Democrats reached a tentative compromise on a joint response to the Horowitz speech, one of the organizers said. As of last night, there will be a rally at 11 a.m. on the same day, and a panel at 12 p.m. that is expected to include as many of Horowitz’s “101 Most Dangerous Academics in America” from Columbia as possible.

“We have this compromise, but it’s not like everything is resolved,” the organizer said.

“It’s still kind of fragile.”

“We’re going through an ongoing series of discussions about the appropriate response,” Backer said.