Reading some of the articles, opinion pieces, and public interventions that have commented on the status of Columbia College since the events of last summer, I have noted the consistent mobilization of a dichotomy that refers to a supposed rift between the teaching and research activities of Columbia's faculty. One such article, for instance, referred to the Policy and Planning Committee of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences as composed of "nine research faculty," which obscures the fact that all nine members of the PPC—just like all faculty members at the University—have substantial teaching responsibilities that include undergraduate courses. In fact, the typical teaching load of most faculty members at Columbia is one graduate seminar and three undergraduate courses, and even if that ratio may vary in any given department, no faculty member currently has an appointment at Columbia that does not involve undergraduate teaching or advising. For example, although I am currently dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, I served for four years as director of undergraduate studies of my department and for three years as director of undergraduate studies at the Institute for Comparative Literature and Society, all while teaching both graduate and undergraduate courses. What, then, gives rise to and sustains the stubborn teaching-research, undergraduate-graduate dichotomy among some students, faculty, and alumni at Columbia?...