And Chris Shrugged

I leave Spectator as I found it: with too many controversies to write about. With flag desecrations, anti-war protests, administrative scandals, and 1968 celebrations, some things, it seems, will never change. Fortunately, others do. So it is with equal parts humility and hubris that I ask, what have I accomplished? Can I justify my Columbia existence?

My critics and detractors would have you believe that this is a question of ideology. Because they disagree with my politics, my activism must be inconsequential, if not “dangerous.” This is the ignorant rhetoric of “tolerant” and “open-minded” progressives. They are self-righteous hypocrites who will one day tout diversity initiatives and slander, libel, and insult those who disagree with them the next. I’ve put up with enough ad hominem comments from complete strangers to know that’s the case. In the end, however, malicious criticism is a necessary evil. The claim embedded deep in their faulty logic speaks directly to Columbia’s entrenched bias. Simply put, conservative activists embody Columbia’s institutional spirit as much as any champion of social justice or anti-war activist, but they will never receive the same recognition or treatment. Perhaps a bit of contextualization will clarify the point.

Combined, Columbia and the Upper West Side form one of a handful of locations in the United States where one could go and hear neither Republican nor conservative ideas. My critics call this “enlightened.” I call it out-of-touch. But the double-standard is clear. The progressive that would lie prostrate before the brave soul who founded a NARAL chapter at Bob Jones University sees a thriving College Republican organization at Columbia as a fringe and useless nuisance. Whose fringe? Our most controversial speakers had favorable national approval ratings many times that of today’s Democratic Congress. Does the progressive escapism that we call a Columbia degree give someone the right to avoid all dissenting opinions? No. And this is where my fellow conservatives and I have succeeded.

Institutionally, we prompted debate and questioned the status quo while reaching out to alumni who shared our concerns. Interpersonally, we won not necessarily votes, but the respect of our peers. Truly open-minded students deserving of the “liberal” moniker learned that College Republicans are not, in fact, mythical creatures. We are ordinary students, well over 10 percent of the community, who, like everyone else, want only a quality education and the chance to be heard. And I am equally proud of our methods. Unlike our various progressive peers, we respect your right to skip our columns and ignore our events. We have never forced our will on the Columbia community. We have never occupied buildings or stormed stages. We have never circumvented student government and the University Senate. We have never threatened self-mutilation to amend University policy. So why exactly do we do what we do knowing that for all the negative publicity there will be no immediate change? It’s an important question that merits a clarification.

Of all the crude and childish attacks from those supposedly “knowledgeable” strangers, the most devastating are not those directed toward an individual, but their contrived explanation for what motivates us: “They hate Columbia and want to ruin its reputation.” That’s nonsense. If I hated Columbia I would let what I believe to be bias and unjust go unidentified and unanswered. If I hated Columbia I would say and do nothing. But because I have a different vision for Columbia’s future I am told, sometimes to my face, that I loathe the place I have worked so hard to improve. In this respect, the conservative activist has more in common with the progressive protester than the disinterested observer who criticizes, but offers nothing in return. If you’ve followed this column these past three years you would know that I have a profound and unshakable respect for this institution. I look to the past not as a “nostalgist,” but as an optimist. I know how great Columbia can be. As a student I’ve worked toward this end and will continue to do so as an alumnus. Can you say the same? I damn well hope so.

Four years and many shrugs later the Earth has not moved. And honestly, that’s okay. I didn’t expect it to. Things do take time. It is my hope, however, that whether you agree or disagree with my politics, you remember me as one who appealed to reason, never force, and struggled for your acceptance. It is, in the end, the only legitimate means of change.

And so it is with great deference and gratitude that I thank the Columbia Spectator for giving a lowly underclassman an incredible opportunity, braving a good many potential lawsuits in the process; my professors, genuinely good and intelligent people, if not a bit idealistic; the tireless Columbia University staff; the many great executive boards I’ve had the honor to work with these past four years; the great friends on the left and right who have made many a busy day and stressful night worthwhile; and finally, my family, for everything.

Chris Kulawik is a Columbia College senior majoring in history and political science. Chris Shrugged runs alternate Wednesdays. Opinion@columbiaspectator.com