Tiffany Dimm

The Office of the President states that during Lee Bollinger’s 16 years as University President he has fostered “an innovative and sustainable approach to global engagement,” despite evidence showing that the university has invested in or partnered with foreign and domestic institutions that have questionable backgrounds. As undergraduates, should we support his efforts to expand Columbia abroad?

Considering how civically engaged we are on campus (unionization, midterm elections, etc.), what is our responsibility—if we have one—to extend that around the dinner table during the holidays in politically polarizing times? Should we confront family we don’t agree with?

Greek life—from traditional fraternities and sororities to pre-professional societies and multicultural organizations—has long been a staple of American university life. But, given many national incidents of hazing and sexual assault at fraternities and actions by Columbia’s peer schools to curtail or eliminate it, should Columbia ban Greek life?

If one of the purposes of the University is to equip students to enter the professional world, what does it say about Columbia’s pre-professional culture that students perceive CCE to be primarily focused on finance, consulting, and tech?

According to a 2017 New York Times report, 13.4 percent of Columbia’s undergraduate students come from the top 1 percent of household income brackets in the U.S., and 21.1 are in the bottom 60 percent of household income brackets. What does it mean for learning inside and outside the classroom that the demographics of the Columbia community are so vastly disproportionate to the demographics of the country?

Created in the wake of the 1968 protests, the University Senate was originally meant to restructure the University’s administrative and governing systems in order to effectively incorporate student and professorial input in university-wide policy decisions. Is the University Senate fulfilling its mandate?

In our public imagination, Columbia has the dual identity of being both a traditionally entrenched Ivy League university and a liberal activist haven, and as a result it faces the perceived trappings of both. How can we reconcile these two seemingly opposed value systems? What is––or should be––Columbia's role in preserving the status quo? In spearheading radical change?