University Senate

PROCEEDINGS OF THE STUDENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE:

TRANSCRIPT OF A HEARING ON STUDENT GROUP OVERSIGHT:

FEBRUARY 23, 2007

Sen. Christopher Riano (Stu., GS, and co-chair of the Student Affairs Committee) began the hearing at 11 am in the Jerome Greene Lounge. About 50 people, including about 20 student senators, were present during the meeting.

Riano: So welcome, everybody. Keith, you’re actually first up. So if you want you can go sit at the microphone over there. Thanks. I must say I wasn’t the one that set up the room, but that’s okay. This is kind of fun. Yeah, Keith do you want a Bible, a Koran to swear in on?

Keith Hernandez (student president of the Activities Board at Columbia): A Bible, Koran. No. No, I don’t even know.

Riano: Keith, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Riano: Perfect. So thank you everybody for coming. Jianshu, welcome, Lee [?]. Thank you. Perfect. So I don’t really have too many remarks. I just kind of want to go over very quickly kind of while we’re all here, and then I’m going to let Keith speak. We’re here trying just to discuss a very overarching theme of the way that student affairs, student groups, student organization is here at Columbia. The caucus represents, and I believe everybody, basically the entire university here, I think we have almost every school here right now, and just—everybody brings a different perspective to the table. The presidents do, as well as Keith, about their own particular groups and the way that those fall into student affairs and student group organization, and so there’s not really too much that’s off the table, IGB, SGB, everything like that—you’re all welcome to speak about it and so is the caucus.

So without further ado, I also would ask that everybody please introduce themselves with names so that that can be transcribed once we do the transcription of the hearing, and your title. So thank you very much. Keith, please.

Hernandez: The first thing I know you said you wanted five minutes for the speech. Could I have more time than that? It’s going to be a little longer.

Riano: Yeah, that’s fine. That’s perfectly fine.

Hernandez: I’m Keith Hernandez, president of the Activities Board at Columbia (ABC), and also Columbia College representative on the President’s Council on Student Affairs. The Activities Board at Columbia is the largest governing board at Columbia, comprising 151 student organizations and serving the undergraduate schools of Columbia College, SEAS, and General Studies. We also duly recognize groups at [the] Barnard Student Government Association. Our board is advised by the Office of Student Development and Activities (SDA) and the Office of Multicultural Affairs—components of the Division of Student Affairs for CC and SEAS. The board has four executive officers [and], 13 representatives charged with overseeing between eight and twelve groups, and three liaisons representing the three funding councils. [Tape breaks up for a few seconds] We are a self-governing board whose decisions are not under the jurisdiction of any administrative body.

I’d like to clarify that our focus is expressly for undergraduates of the three schools. Our task is to appropriately fund student organizations that benefit the undergraduate community, and it is for this reason that we hold requirements regarding the focus and nature of organizations and the events that are held. This determination is derived from the fact that the student life fees paid by the three schools are the source of our funding.

Regarding the recent General Studies Student Council resolution and the question before us regarding student group oversight, I would first like to explain the developing relationship between General Studies, ABC, and the establishment of one undergraduate community. In the fall of 2002 GSSC voted to fold its groups into ABC and provide funding as part of the annual funding at Columbia University. It was believed that this would better integrate GS students in the greater undergraduate community. Moreover, an agreement was made by the dean of General Studies such that the Division of Student Affairs for CC/ SEAS would manage and advise all student groups for GS. The advisers of SDA, however, continued to reach out to other schools and hold monthly meetings with representatives from Barnard’s College Activities Office and representatives of the General Studies administration to coordinate procedure and share information.

We at ABC have been extremely happy with the support and advice provided by the SDA and the Division of Student Affairs in general. The division provides highly qualified professionals with master’s degrees to advise and support the student groups. Moreover, as far as I’m concerned, neither ABC nor SGB [the Student Governing Board] has received some specific complaints from General Studies students. The few complaints that have come before us have been rapidly dealt with. If there are any GS students who do not feel welcomed at any ABC groups, I sincerely apologize and will do whatever I can to reduce this discomfort.

As few of these concerns have been vocalized to me, I firmly believe that the Division of Student Affairs has successfully and effectively served students and student groups. It has been a pleasure to work with the Division of Student Affairs as it takes on student group advising for all three undergraduate schools, becoming the de facto center for undergraduate student life for the three undergraduate schools.

It had been suggested, however, that there are other needs outside of an undergraduate sphere. As a result individuals have called for a centralized division of student affairs, or in the meantime a council of deans that would solve all concerns. There are, however, significant organizational, structural issues, including sources of funding, the autonomy of schools and the dilution of an undergraduate community, that hinder the development of a centralized division. If we centralize student affairs, what would happen to admissions, financial aid, academic advising that presently sit up at the CC/ SEAS office? How would the new division be funded, and what will be the effect on Columbia College and SEAS alumni donations? How are we to create a system where everyone’s an equal player when all schools have different sizes, different needs and different abilities to support the centralized authority? And how are we to reconcile the innate differences between undergraduate and graduate student life? These questions will not be easily answered, and require significant dialogue between students, university officials, faculty and alumni.

But this brings forth another and yet more critical issue, the hasty development of the Interschool Governing Board (IGB), and the assertion by GSSC that the Council of Deans should be empowered to oversee ABC and SGB consistent with the model established by the IGB. Essentially the IGB has very good intentions, but the current constitution leaves a lot to be desired. The inclusion of deans in the development of the IGB leadership is inherently problematic, and it does not allow for student autonomy, the core value in the undergraduate governing boards. This is further compounded by the rotating delegate system that dilutes the influence and power of schools that perhaps require the most voice on the council. In the end the composition of the board intends to include all members of the community, but has done so in a matter that does not address the critical questions regarding centralization I have outlined before. How should undergraduate and graduates interact and what should be the nature of this relationship?

When the IGB was sold to students last year, the claim was made that it would be a graduate school governing board; one that would possibly benefit students who did not have divisions of student affairs at their own schools. At no time was it explained that funds would be siphoned off from undergraduate student life fees to pay for this governing board. Now that the picture is clear, I join with other members of the undergraduate community in shock that student life fees are involved in the diversion of payments and [that this] was not openly expressed to students. Students should have been able to decide where their money goes. This one-size-fits-all approach obscures the deeper issues that are involved in the development of a centralized governing board or authority and dilutes the autonomy of individual schools.

At the heart of the problem with the IGB and any similar measures taken for other governing boards is the inherent divide between undergraduate and graduate schools. This divide overshadows the inexplicably vague charge in the Student Affairs Caucus which was given the jurisdiction over student organizations that deal with students in more than one faculty or school. The vagueness of this [?] explicitly suggests that the dealings with CC and SEAS are under the express jurisdiction of the Student Affairs Caucus. This was not and cannot be seen as the intent of the caucus. Undergraduate life is and should continue to be seen separate from the rest of the university student body. This differentiation is necessitated by the common educational experience of undergraduates that cannot be subsumed. As an undergraduate and a leader of undergraduate student groups, I must denounce any movement toward centralization that does not give special purview for undergraduate life or governing board structure that does not allow for self-governance. I call on the Student Affairs Caucus to review the actions previously taken in the construction of the IGB and delay the operation of the board and any other formal structures until such a time as the larger questions I have raised and others will raise today are answered in full.

My opposition to formal centralization at this time is firm. But please do not mistake this for being unsupportive of other schools. I care deeply about building a strong university student body, and in [an] informal capacity I offer advice and support to all members of the community, whoever asks for it. I believe that there are ways we can work together, be supportive of each other, but rather than through building—excuse me—we can work together, support each other, and fight through red tape without resorting to massive organizational upheaval, but rather through building informal linkages between students, between schools.

The push for centralization, epitomized by the IGB, has masked the real questions we ought to be asking each other as students. What are our collective concerns and how can we solve them? Instead we have tried to export our problems to a system run by administrators. Ironic to say the least.

I thank the Student Affairs Caucus for holding a hearing on this issue. I only wish that I could have been brought into the discussion earlier. Regards, Keith Hernandez.

I also have an appendix with the actual article from the Spectator, dated 10/23/2002 and titled “General Studies Council joins forces with ABC upon approval by CCSC and ESC. General Studies is enjoying a new financial role in the activities board.” I don’t know if I have to read it, but just mention that is available.

Riano: Can you go over that one more time, Keith?

Hernandez: [As] part of an appendix I added the Columbia Spectator’s article on 10/23/2002 which explains when General Studies folded their groups into ABC.

Riano: Keith, thank you very much. That was [?]. Questions?

Sen. Andrea Hauge (Stu, Business): Yes. I’m a senator of the Business School. Where do you propose that, if you are not supported by IGB, where do you propose then that interschool groups that don’t fall under one school, say Business per se, but have liaison between Business, Engineering, SIPA and so on, where do you propose they go and get recognition?

Hernandez: I believe that they should have recognition in IGB, but as I said, I have a problem currently with the constitution. I reviewed the entire constitution just trying to figure out how the structure will work. Very interestingly, a lot of the constitution is taken from my constitution so it was very interesting to see the parts that existed. And personally, and I can’t say the exact quote, but there’s a quote that says we must decide our own governing structures regardless of who we are. The IGB has to decide what they want their organizations to look like, and they just shouldn’t take things from ABC because it’s worked for us. I think that you should probably look through the things that you really want from the IGB and then really clarify those needs and clarify where the funding pool’s going to come from before we try to jump everything into it. I think it was a little bit too fast. Just from my perspective.

Hauge: Okay. And just more clarification, what do you see as the inherent problem exactly with the current rotating structure of the board of the IGB?

Hernandez: If I’m aware, there are two undergraduate spots and three graduate rotating spots. So feasibly you would have groups that perhaps do not have divisions of student affairs that would really need or really could use an IGB or a voice on an IGB and not have the ability to be on there four or five years. I think they have a five-year rotating spot. So then that’s a problem, I think, that really dilutes any potential for somebody to speak up if they really have something that’s very strong in their community. And they’re expecting people from other schools maybe who’ve never met you to represent you. I think that anything less than trying to make sure that the groups that do not have a division of student affairs have permanent seats on the IGB would not be helpful.

Hauge: And then just to follow up on that, I think a lot of students feel that that’s something that could be fixed under a centralized system, and hence the push towards some people’s interest in a centralized system. You know that would offer that type of permanent representation.

Hernandez: I believe a centralized system is important and I think that we should think about how we want it to look like. The only thing that I do ask is that undergraduate life remain a unique and unified component.

Another voice: But still with participation in IGB.

Hauge: Yes.

Sen. Kimberly Gaston (Stu., Social Work): So just to follow up on that comment. What benefits and what potential cons do you see in separating, like having the undergraduates be a unique and separate body? Like why should they be separate, instead of kind of bridging the gaps between the graduate students and the undergraduate students? What pros and cons? Can you speak to that?

Hernandez: I think the biggest pro is you want a united university student body. I think that breaking that divide is very, very important, and I think that we together, if we work together, we can do a lot of things and a lot of fantastic things. But I am first and foremost an undergraduate of this university. I live on this campus. I live with my peers. It’s a coeducational experience, and I don’t think that my experience translates exactly to the experience that the graduate school students have. And I think that diluting that would be very problematic for me. I think that it would be difficult for any undergraduate to want to come to a school where they didn’t have a unique undergraduate experience.

Sen. David Ali (Stu., Columbia College): I’ve talked to you before, Keith, but I’d just like this for the record. Currently in ABC there are graduate students who can participate. So how does that affect groups in any way?

Hernandez: Well, as I added as a footnote to my students, it should be noted that we openly allow graduate students and other community members to be part of our organizations so long as the group itself remains focused for undergraduates and fits the requirements found in the ABC constitution. Part three: have a membership consisting of two-thirds Columbia College or School of Engineering and Applied Sciences and/or General Studies undergraduate students. Four: be open to all members of the Columbia community regardless of race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender, veteran status or physical handicaps. And then the eighth clause: have a president or treasurer be a full- time student of Columbia College, SEAS or GS. So you only have to have those requirements; otherwise everyone’s allowed.

Sen. Danielle Wolfe (Stu., Barnard): Just wanted to clarify the funding issue. It’s one of the things he brought up, and that was one of the things that I, when we were going in to making the IGB proposal was curious about too, and just talked with Kim about it. I just want to put out there that the student activities fee was already raised, and Columbia just had that money and had nowhere to put it. So that’s why with the IGB, we wanted to obviously tap into that. And it’s my understanding there was no administrator that was against putting the money toward the IGB because they had nowhere else to, or they didn’t have any other ideas of where to put it. So it was more of not us trying to take away money from other efforts of undergraduate communities or anything. It was more us using the surplus that Columbia had and had no intention of putting into any, you know, funding any events, etc. That’s where we came from on the issue, and I do agree that it could have been more transparent of a process, but yet it certainly wasn’t us trying to hoard money for our purposes.

Hernandez: The only, I guess, comment to that is that every single day I’m faced with funding issues with our groups. So then I have to go back to them and say, well, there’s been all this money along the entire time. So that just makes my job more difficult. So then we all have this process; were we brought into this question earlier and all the councils brought in earlier, it would have made a lot of things easier. And so I guess that’s the best way. I understand—I’ve heard the full story [that] the money was already there. What are you going to do with it? Well, why was the money there in the first place? You know, that’s the question.

Wolfe: That’s a good question.

Another voice: Just to follow up on that. Since undergraduates can obviously participate in the IGB, I mean, what type of funding would you be interested in paying in then? And how would you go about deciding that process if you had to do it all over, if you were able to do it over again?

Hernandez: I don’t want to really speculate because I think that’s something we need to sit down and talk [about]. I think right now what I’m really expressing is the sense of shock and really trying to pull back the conversation instead of pushing it forward, ignoring the fact the we’ve passed through a lot of things without discussing them. Particularly, like are these groups going to be really pushed, are we really going to push for graduate schools that do not have divisions of student affairs to have a very, very strong role in the IGB? Because are ABC groups all of a sudden going to start going to the IGB, and is it going to become completely dominated by undergraduates? I don’t think that that’s what graduate schools would like. That’s not really what I would like to see, is undergraduates dominating a structure that was made explicitly for people that did not have outlets for extracurricular activities.

Riano: What college doesn’t have a dean of student affairs division?

Hernandez:: Well, I mean like an active undergraduate student council or an undergraduate governing board.

Riano: Which?

Hernandez: The ones I’ve been made aware of have been the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (GSAS) in particular. And I’ve spoken with [GSAS student senator} Kira von Ostenfeld. I’m not sure if Kira’s here. And that was one of the main concerns in producing the IGB. I know that was one of the main concerns in the development last year because I was involved in some of the discussions, particularly with CUCSA, Columbia University Chinese Students Association, where the development was, there was nowhere for them to sit even though they’re majority graduate students, GSAS students and some Business School students.

Sen. Sumeet Shah (Stu., Engineering): I understand when you had mentioned the constitution of ABC that there has to be two-thirds sitting of CC, SEAS, or GS. So how are your thoughts on possibly having IGB be a major league graduate school equivalent of ABC, for example? For example, maybe it could be run like by graduate students—but also still open to undergrads as well. So basically we have a role reversal.

Hernandez: I like that idea. I think we’d have to look into it further, but just on the merits it sounds [like] a good compromise.

Gaston (Social Work): So just for those students who are in support of the IGB and the centralization, the way they’re coming at it is that deans were put into the IGB as a safeguard for students. And the reason for that is because we don’t have centralization currently. So there would be no need for deans to be sitting on the IGB governing board if there was centralization. So my question is, could you describe or explain how all students are protected or safeguarded under the current structure?

Hernandez: Regarding IGB or regarding. . .?

Gaston: Regarding ABC.

Hernandez: ABC. I suppose, well, we are a self-governing board so we make all the decisions for our students and for our student groups. We are advised by the Office of Student Development Activities (ABC), who essentially, if there’s a question of legal liability, step in, but for most other decisions, it’s up to us to decide how we best believe we should allocate funds to each other. That’s the idea.

Gaston: But how?

Hernandez: I know I missed part of your question.

Gaston: So, yeah, just under IGB the role is to protect more students and safeguard, you know, the needs of the majority if not all students on campus, graduate and undergraduate. And to do that without centralization, it was decided that deans needed to be put on there as a safeguard to protect graduate students, perhaps, who aren’t safeguarded under the current structure because there’s no representation really for them currently. So if the opposition is against IGB, or more specifically against centralization, I’m wondering what the safeguards are for students, like graduate students currently, or all students. Because right now I don’t see that all students are being protected.

Hernandez: I think that my problem with IGB’s constitution and the fact that there are only eight members and four executive officers is that it’s limited. And I think that instead of giving three of those spots away to deans, we should give them to more students and have a strong-- Currently what we have at ABC is a strong adviser, and if I’m not mistaken, I’ve heard that Kevin Shollenberger [Associate Dean in the Division of Student Affairs, CC/SEAS] is going to be currently advising the organizations, or the IGB. And he’s done a fantastic job helping us out. I mean, he’s somebody you should really trust and understand, but he will never jump in and overrule anything we will do. And I think that even though you hope for a safeguard, I think that by having the structure you have right now it’s almost forcing the need for centralization instead of trying to answer the question right now, how do we safeguard students? Because you created a structure that won’t work very well probably, with having three deans in the same room voting on allocations with other students. I think that’s tough to really jump through.

Wolfe: Just to follow up on Kim’s question. How does your group protect all students?

Hernandez: Currently?

Wolfe: Yes.

Hernandez: We are an undergraduate group so we--

Wolfe: But you allow students to participate as active members in the groups who are graduate students as well?

Hernandez: Yes.

Wolfe: How are they protected?

Hernandez: They’re protected by the Office of Student Development Activities who—any member, regardless of school, is protected by the office.

Wolfe: But yet a graduate student can’t hold a position on an executive board [cross talk].

Hernandez: Yes they can. They just, they may not hold a position that is either president or treasurer. President or treasurer must come from those three schools.

Wolfe: Okay. Well, for example, that’s not what—I’m a member of an ABC club. That’s not what we were told by our adviser. We were told that no graduate student could hold a position of the board. That’s very specific obviously, and you’re saying it’s not the case. But that’s just an example of how graduate students are not protected by the advising structure if one adviser has in their mind that “Oh, sorry, you can’t hold an executive board position,” and is telling their clubs that. Something to look into.

Hernandez: What I would ask is that you e-mail me immediately and we will fix the problem. Please bear in mind that there are a lot of new advisers for SDA that are holding a lot of responsibilities now that SGB has moved into the Division of Student Affairs. So I would ask that if you do have problems, the best people to help you will be ABC, and we’ll be the key to SGB. So please e-mail us.

Sen. Marcus Johnson (Stu., Columbia College, and co-chair, Student Affairs Committee): Keith, thanks for coming. I appreciate your remarks. I’m a little, I’m interested and curious as to—I expected us to have a hearing where we could all just sort of more calmly discuss, you know, where we come from, what we do. I’m a little bit surprised that you seem to already have fully thought-out opinions on exactly how IGB’s going to run or not run effectively. So I’m very glad that we’re all here to discuss our feelings. I’m almost a little bit anxious now to hear what Sakib, Dan, Seth, Eman and Susanna have to say. [Laughter] So yeah, my ears [are] all perked up now. Thanks a lot. I just want to thank you for that.

Riano: Yeah, Keith, I’d like to thank you as well. That was a great start to this, and I appreciate you coming prepared and ready to speak. And those concerns are definitely going to be addressed in the report that we put forward before the university. Because I feel that’s critical, and like you said you do represent a huge portion of the student groups on this campus. So thank you Keith.

Hernandez: Thank you.

Riano: Sakib? I don’t know if you brought photocopies of the thing that you sent to me. I don’t know if you want to pass those out or? It’s completely up to you. That can go on the record. It’s a Xanax day. I don’t care. Sakib, thank you.

Sakib Kahn (chair of the Student Governing Board): The SGB was founded in 1969—on January 10^th, 1969, in fact—in the wake of the 1968 protests here at Columbia. In its current incarnation the SGB recognizes undergraduate religious, spiritual, political, ideological, and activist groups on Columbia’s campus. We are funded by the Columbia College Student Council, the Engineering Student Council, the Student Government Association of Barnard, and the General Studies Student Council. All four councils fund us fully, and as such, we are representative of students in all four schools. Graduate students may participate in SGB activities, may be full members of groups, and may hold up to half of the positions on the group’s executive board, with the exception of president and treasurer. That is, my understanding by agreement with the four student councils that fund us.

GSSC recently passed a resolution. I’m going to let Susanna talk about that from her end as she’d like. But the effect of the resolution was that GSSC felt concerned about the move, the recent move of SGB from Earl Hall, which is a central administration office, to the Division of Student Affairs at Columbia College and School of Engineering. I feel that GSSC is right to be concerned about the move, as there are a lot of GS students that are active with the SGB groups, and that SGB as a board makes no distinction between students of the four schools that fully fund us, and so I felt that their discomfort with moving from central administration to a school-specific advising scheme was somewhat reasonable.

At the same time the SGB, we’re a self-governing board. Our nature of being religious, political, activist, ideological means that our self-governance is almost militant. It’s just the nature of the way things are. Administration, several administrators take stances, whether they be political stances or religious stances, and as a board in a lot of ways we act to protect student groups from bias, from administration probably more often than from students, and as such, as a self-governing board, it is in our interest to counteract any sort of oversight or supervision from advising that could be perceived as being content bias.

In so far as SGB and its relationship with the University Senate, we exist in, to my knowledge, two University Statutes, Statute 103 and Statute 105, and I’d just like to bring to the attention of the Student Affairs Caucus that both Statutes need to be amended now that the SGB is no longer in Earl Hall. Joseph Joe, a representative on the SGB, passed out what we’ve proposed as sample language for the Senate to consider, for passing an amendment to modernize Statute 103, and as well as modernizing and modifying Statute 105. 103 establishes SGB, it establishes us and gives us a definition. Our draft language gives us a definition that reflects where we are right now, not where we are when these two statutes were last amended in 1991. 105 on the books establishes an advisory council for the Earl Hall Center which has a primary capacity of being an oversight committee for the Student Governing Board. As we no longer exist in the Earl Hall Center, the advisory committee for the Earl Hall Center really doesn’t make sense to advise us, to oversee us any more. However, given that its primary function when it was in existence five years ago in actuality was to oversee the SGB, it makes sense to amend that and make it into an advisory council for the SGB, and use that as a tool to provide recourse, which is I think what GS as well as Barnard are looking for in the current advising structure. So we’ve proposed draft language. It’s there. I suppose it’s on the record now, and I’m open to questions.

Riano: Thank you Sakib. Mr. Johnson.

Sen. John Johnson (Stu., Law School): Apologies for my tardiness; traveling mercies from Harvard didn’t go so well. I appreciate your characterization of SGB and how there might be more heightened concerns of the goals of the group being censored in a sense by leadership. But can you, I guess, elaborate more on how you think that would happen?

Kahn: Okay. Well, to use a recent example, over the past couple of years the SGB executive board began to notice that there seemed to be a political bias in the way security fees were being assessed to student groups. It seemed that events that were deemed more controversial tended to be billed in much greater proportion for security than events that were considered non-controversial. For example, the College Democrats for the school year of 2005-06 were not billed a single dollar in security fees even though they hosted several congressmen and high-profile events. Meanwhile, the College Republicans were billed an exorbitant amount of money for hosting John Ashcroft and the [?] Students Association was billed an exorbitant amount of money for hosting Norman Finkelstein. As such we advocated for and eventually resulted in the establishment of a securities fund that now covers each security fee in a centralized fashion for all undergraduate student activities. Those are all paid on a flat-fee basis the way facilities are paid for, and that removes political bias from the way student groups are billed. That’s kind of a sample case of how we try to remove bias from administrative procedures.

Riano: Well, before anybody else asks any other questions, I’d like to thank you for putting this together, and I was hoping maybe you could go just a little bit further and explain how you came up with this particular statutory revision. We’re definitely going to take this forward and talk as a caucus about this, and present a lot of this. I mean, clearly that’s part of the report to the Senate. But I was just hoping you’d kind of like go into the background of how you came up with this particular structure.

Kahn: Okay. So in terms of how we came up with 103, basically with both statutes we took the existing statute as it is on the books, and looked at it to compare it to our constitution. As it currently sits, we are proposing amendments coming up within the next month to modernize [our constitution], to bring it into an SGB that exists in the Division of Student Affairs and not Earl Hall, and our current practice. And we revised 103 to reflect that more accurately. We removed all mentions of Earl Hall of course. And then with 105 we essentially replaced, you know, “advisory committee for the Earl Hall Center” with “advisory committee for the Student Governing Board.” And in particular the major revision was that we stipulated that the committee have in its make- up at least three tenured professors at the university and at least two Barnard affiliates as a way to assuage concerns of the School of General Studies and Barnard that they will not be represented in the way SGB is overseen.

Another voice: Thank you, Sakib. Go ahead.

Yu-Lan Duggan (School of International and Public Affairs). Just a quick question, if you could clarify how you guys see yourself different from ABC, and also do you have any particularly strong opinions in regards to IGB as your previous—?

Kahn: Okay. So in terms of ABC versus SGB, we’re kind of content specific in that we recognize clubs that are religious, spiritual, political, ideological, activist in nature, and in practice we also recognize clubs that are humanitarian and identity-conscious in nature as well. And we’re looking to revise our constitution to reflect that. And so we recognize those clubs, and ABC in its constitution specifies that it recognizes clubs that are not those things, as well as not the activities that Community Impact or the Inter-Greek Council or club sports recognize. So ABC, of the five governing boards, kind of recognizes whatever doesn’t fit into the other four. And then in terms of IGC, you know, if there exists another governing board, it really doesn’t have that much of an impact on us so long as groups that better fit under IGB rather than under us, move to IGB and that’s happening with CACSA, for example.

Wolfe: If SGB were to be moved under a unified or a centralized university division of student affairs, how do you think that would affect the way your group functions? If you were, you know, able to keep the way your constitution is organized and keep your version of [a] student-run executive board, how would that affect you rather than being under Dean Colombo and his student affairs division? Are there big effects?

Kahn: Well, in practice we try to keep our autonomy and try to keep it very dear to us. And so in a sense it doesn’t matter so much who’s providing advising to us and what advisors are signing off on space requests and vouchers, and, you know, not really interfering with how students practice their religion or their politics. So in a sense it wouldn’t make that big a difference. At the same time, there are always concerns with central administration. Central administration’s perceptions of how they deal with students and—you know, we are coming from a central administration that moved us from Earl Hall to Student Affairs without consulting us once. They announced it to us and then forced the move in two months at breakneck speed. There’s not much trust, to be frank with you, right now with central administration.

The College has been extremely welcoming of us at this current time, and also frankly we simply don’t need another move. It’s been extremely time consuming, and a lot of what the SGB has put its energy into this year. In fact, almost all of our energy has gone to this move and other business has kind of been left to the wayside.

Wolfe: Aside from the time-consuming aspect this year, do you think it makes sense in the future, however, to have SGB under a more central administration? I mean, regardless of the idea of central administration and how they work against you, but in a sort of university type of student affairs versus under Dean Colombo’s office, do you think it makes sense for the future, regardless of which administrators decided to make the move, etc, do you think it makes sense for you to stay under Dean Colombo?

Kahn: I mean, I think it makes sense for us to stay under Dean Colombo, so long as Dean Colombo has an office. If there’s a centralized division of student affairs, obviously it makes sense for us to sit there. The question as to whether this is good for student life I think is a larger question more pertinent to the student councils than to my governing board in particular.

Hauge: Andrea Hauge, senator of the Business School. I know this might be a sensitive topic, but what type of problems have you run into while you were under central administration aside from this unilateral move over?

Kahn: I mean, the unilateral move over was basically the major gripe we have with central administration at this point. We’ve made it very clear to them that they just simply didn’t do this right, and they weren’t honest about it. I asked Provost Brinkley on October 4^th, sorry, October 2^nd, if we were moving. He told me no. By November 2^nd we had functionally moved. And there was no acknowledgement of anything even happening in between. That is basically the source of our distrust with central administration.

Hauge: And preceding that, however, you know, when people are considering moving student activities under a more centralized system, were there other problems that were encountered previous to that?

Kahn: Previous to that we received a lot of autonomy from the Office of the University Chaplain. Chaplain Davis was a tremendous advocate for student activities, and as such she proved to be a great voice for us in central administration.

Hauge: Thank you.

Another voice: Just to clarify something, it was my understanding that the reason SGB was moved was because there were certain administrators that wanted SGB to fall under a more central control. That was just the feeling I got from it. That’s why they wanted to move it under Dean Colombo. I don’t know if that’s [something] we can’t talk about, but because that was what SDA was under and they, you know, felt like there needed maybe to be more control over groups and events that were happening, maybe surrounding the Minutemen? I don’t know. That was my feeling. I feel like one of the benefits of having a centralized university student affairs would be to make sure that all voices are being heard, not necessarily to be under the control of administrators, and I feel that that clarification needs to be made because it’s not, I think, anybody’s intention that groups be overseen more by administrators than by students by centralizing.

Kahn: In terms of why the move was made, the argument that was put forth to us by the provost and then by the president was clear that they felt that for the SGB to continue existing in a post Minutemen era, the SGB needed greater resources in its advising, and that central administration was not willing to give those resources to the Earl Hall Center, but that those resources existed in the Division of Student Affairs.

Riano: Perfect. Sakib, thank you very much. I appreciate your comments. We’ve had two wonderful speakers so far. Dan Okin, I expect nothing less. Just so that everybody on the caucus is aware, there’s a little bit of a switch. The first two speakers have been from the student governing boards. I also felt it’s important to hear from the student body presidents, at least from the undergraduate world, about how they feel about all these issues. So, Mr. Okin, please.

Daniel Okin (president of the Engineering Student Council): Thank you, Chris. I cannot offer polished remarks to the level of my colleague and compatriot Keith Hernandez, but I will do my best to wow the Senate chairman. I wanted to thank you for inviting us to speak today. I believe that the issues in front of the Senate and Student Affairs Caucus are important to both undergraduates and graduate students alike, and they definitely merit discussion. I want to clarify my role. I am a representative of the Engineering student body, and that’s how I am speaking today. I will be expressing their opinions on this matter as best as I possibly can. So just to jump right into it.

Regarding ABC and SGB, I think that one can look at ABC and see an excellent model for how student advising and student groups have been managed at this university. ABC is a financially solvent governing board that has excellent management skills, both mastered by Keith Hernandez and his predecessors, and has done an amazing job at promoting student life to the best of its ability given the funding constraints. SGB has also done an incredible job managing religious and political activism throughout the university, and Sakib has been incredible at promoting their ability to continue to do so within the university post the Minutemen issue.

As a student council and a funder of both of those individual organizations, I stand behind their decision to remain autonomous, and I believe that that is where they should remain. Their decision to work with students on an individual basis based upon their own affiliation as a governing board is important, and I think the distinction is necessary to make. [Neither] Student Affairs nor any advising office has direct control over any student or student group within those groups under those governing boards, and I personally stand behind both Keith and Sakib’s illustration that they are independent and they will remain to do so.

I also want to call into line the fact that both ABC and SGB support graduate students already at no additional cost or no payment by the by the graduate schools into the advising system. I think that’s an important thing to notice here, especially the fact that GS students who pay equally into the governance of these groups on an individual and student level are supported by the administrative systems put in place by both CC and SEAS alumni.

Transitioning that into IGB, I think it’s important to remember that this is an excellent idea. No one denies the fact that what Andrea has brought up as a problem, what happens with a group that has both engineers and law students and business students, where does it sit? I think that is definitely something that needs to be addressed. However, I want to agree with Keith and Sakib (well, Sakib didn’t mention this, but Keith definitely) that it has been a little too hastily put together. And I am a little concerned about the structure and the governance of the system.

The Council of Deans is not a governing body. It is an information-sharing body designed to help deans and schools understand where each of them lie and how they work. And I think that the fundamental thing we should examine here is that when the Council of Deans was approached to manage IGB, it was handed off to SDA. So that as an issue illustrates to me the excellence at which SDA has been advising student groups over the course of the last seven years under Kevin Shollenberger.

The other important thing for me and the most worrisome is the monetary funding system that has been proposed for IGB. A flat tax to all students does not necessarily meet the demands of the student bodies that will be participating in that governing board, and I worry that if we just flatly tax each individual that students will be taken for their money and used as support for other groups. I think that council oversight on the other governing boards has been important in meriting, in deciding what each governing board merits, and I hope that the Senate considers a similar system, whether it is done through all of the undergraduate councils or through this committee is another story, and one that I am certainly not capable to address at this point in time.

The other important thing for me, and I don’t know how worried you all were, but I think it’s important to consider that the money for this governing board was taken last year and has been sitting idly by. As a student council that benefits from student life fees and where our sole funding comes from the activities fees paid by our constituent students, it worries me that over $130,000 of student, of university money has been sitting idly and not been used. That is money that could have been put back into student groups, and I hope that the Senate, the Student Affairs Caucus takes action and recommends that it is returned to the students for the years that it has not been used.

In general I don’t think that IGB should be opposed in any way, shape or form. I think that, again I want to reiterate how amazing a concept it is. But I think that there is a lot more that needs to be discussed about this, and I wish that the councils and the other undergraduate governing boards were brought into the discussion earlier.

To address my last comments towards centralization, I just want to say that from my perspective undergraduate student life in the form of student groups has been centralized since GS has folded its groups into ABC and SGB. The Office of Student Development Activities has been advising all student groups that sit under both, that sit under GS, CC and SEAS for the last five years, and as far as I’m aware very few complaints have arisen based upon that fact, the fact that GS have been actually rolled into that. The student advising groups do have monthly meetings between the advisers and I have been in contact with members of that advising system, and there has been no complaints or issues that have been brought to the people in the Student Development Activities office this year as of yet. So I just want to say that from my perspective as a governing body of these groups, they seem to be working very well, and the provisions for their existence and cohabitation as undergraduates is already in place.

That being said, I want to echo Keith in the fact that I believe undergraduate student life is vastly different than graduate student life at this university. I am all for the centralization of graduate student affairs. I think that would be an excellent, excellent move forward for the graduate student groups who do not necessarily have the developed student affairs system that the undergraduate schools have. But as far as I’m concerned undergraduate student life is important to remain separate. It is funded by our alumni, and it is the pride of all the deans in each and every school. I have recently spoken to my dean, the undergraduate dean [?] who God rest his soul is now leaving. Pardon me.

Riano: Would you like a moment of silence, Dan?

Okin: But he has expressed to me in his very succinct style, “I like them where they are,” and I agree with him. Student Affairs and its direct tie to the deans of the undergraduate schools allow student concerns to always be at the forefront, and my major concern is that a centralization will wash out the individual needs of each school. And that is why I directly oppose the folding in of undergraduate student life into a centralized system.

I also wish to call to attention that there is significantly more to student affairs, at least in our system, than just student group advising. Student group advising is merely one-sixth of the student affairs department for the College and Engineering School. All of our admissions office and financial aid offices are run under student affairs. So the merger of student affairs for us concerns a whole lot more than just student group advising. But I do wish to return to the point and echo it that as far as I’m concerned undergraduate student advising has been centralized on the Columbia University side, and I mean to emphasize Columbia University because Barnard has a very different and distinct student advising system and is not part of our student affairs. But that is their choice, and I believe they are quite happy with it. Hopefully Aman will agree.

So I think that pretty much concludes my points, and again I apologize for not being as eloquent or succinct as Mr. Hernandez, but thank you.

Riano: One person I want to definitely have speak on this issue that you brought up—the idea of the special divide between undergraduate and graduate—is Andrea. Andrea is a CC alum and now she’s at the Business School. So she has, out of the caucus at least, the best kind of perspective on the differences, etc. So before anybody else speaks, I don’t know if Andrea you want to say something first then.

Hauge: Yeah. Actually I think there’s an amazing amount of undergraduates who return to Columbia for graduate studies. I think they’re not being utilized whatsoever, and there is a strong interest in a lot of graduates for inter-school participation events. The issue is where to house these and I think it’s very early. I was surprised that you were against a flat tax system for the IGB because I think it’s very early to decide who should pay and how much for groups that we have no idea how they would function and what their participation would be. I would like to see undergraduates fully active in these groups to some extent as well. So I don’t see it as something strictly for graduate students. I think part of the aim would be to create these unifications that would be very beneficial to undergraduates who perhaps want to, in this case, study business or something in the future, to go ahead and begin making those ties across the university.

And to that point, if a flat tax system is not fair, then how would we even begin to go about deciding what would be fair for groups whose constitutions as far as demographics we have no idea what they would be yet.

Okin: [?]: To address your flat tax system, I think that you bring to the head the crucial issue for why I’m against the flat tax system, which is that we have absolutely no idea what the student groups or what the governing board will require. Until you can actually determine that, money should not be taken from each individual student assuming participation will be uniform. So for me, it’s important to establish the IGB and determine its needs, and based upon the needs of the governing board, we can agree to fund it proportionately. I think that if the administration is truly committed to this, then they should provide initial start-up funds and let the governing board run for a year, and pull in new groups before they actually decide to flatly tax each individual student and assume that participation will again be uniform. Because I have issues assuming that right off the bat.

Hauge: Wouldn’t the uniformity at least in some way insure that all students have equal access?

Okin: Yes it would, but if it’s funded by a central system which does not take money from the students to begin with and uses that as a gauge for student participation, then one can understand where each student body will lie. When you’re trying to pull in multiple schools, I think it’s very, very difficult to just assume again that the money will be there. And I pull into this the concept of a flat tax has been rejected by the United States government in general because of that reason. It’s a non-fair tax for people who do not participate in its—you’re smiling at me because it’s a ridiculous comparison. [Laughter] But nonetheless I do illustrate that a flat tax is in general a rejected system for raising money because one should usually tax the people who will benefit most from the system.

Hauge: I think that presumes that the demographics of these groups will not [be] shifting consistently over time, which is what I actually think will occur in a more logical fashion. Those demographics will never be consistent.

Okin: That may be true, but I still think we should wait and see and gauge undergraduate participation before lumping them in, based upon the fact that undergraduates currently have over 300 clubs between the five recognized governing boards that we’ve already created.

Riano: I just want to state very clearly that, at least on my behalf, I completely agree with the fact that there’s money sitting around that’s not being used, especially when people need it. That does bother me that there’s money sitting in a bank right now that could be used by student groups, and that’s definitely something that I think needs to be brought, something that we will work on immediately. Because that, I know how important money is to get student groups off the ground. I know, just on IGB, that lots of student groups have e-mailed me. Can you send us money, can you get us money? And I’m like, “I can’t do anything.” So, but I completely agree. I know that one of the biggest concerns that Keith…[?], they’re like, “We don’t have enough to do the programming and stuff that we want to do.” And I completely, completely agree. And I can’t speak on behalf of everybody up here, but I assume that most people up here would probably agree in some fashion that money shouldn’t be sitting around for students that’s not being used by students. So I just wanted to kind of put that out there.

Sen. Marcus Johnson (CC): Because we’re all students in a big ark.

Riano: So David.

Sen. David Ali (Stu., Columbia College): I just have one point. I guess this goes back to money because I think money is a huge thing, and I know student groups always need more funds. And I think Keith, you touched on this. One thing I’m concerned about with the whole flat tax is that currently for like ABC groups, I think you mentioned graduate students who do participate do not pay. Is that correct? And I mean here we’re not sure exactly how many undergrads will be taking advantage of this IGB and yet they are paying. So it seems like there’s, you know, discrepancy. This is not correct. I mean something has to give for graduate students who take part in ABC.

Sen. Tiffany Davis (Stu., Columbia College): I appreciate everyone coming out and sharing your views, but I would like to note that as with any change it takes time. There’s always going to be something on the surface and things that have to be worked out. Being someone who works in SDA and deals with the groups, I understand those changes and the fallacy of some of the systems. However, it does take time.

Secondly, maybe Keith can speak to this. With the security issues—

Hernandez: Yes.

Another voice: Is there a flat tax on that? …

Hernandez: The student caucus [can’t hear rest of it]

Another voice: Actually that is, currently the security fee, the security system was instituted by the councils at the request of Sakib last year, and each of the four undergraduate student councils pay by student use ratio to a total sum.

Another voice: Thank you for explaining that; however, we must also recognize that even within our tuition fees, we are basically charged a flat rate. You’re charged for psychological counseling and not everyone uses that. You are charged for so many things that not every student uses, but every student is charged with the same amount. So this is not the only part of the institution that this system is being utilized for.

Okin: I understand that, but my concern is with other students adding to that cost already. And for us, especially as undergraduates, our student life fees are exorbitant. They are much, much higher than almost any comparable institution around the country. We pay almost $800 a year in student life fees, and I think that is actually the largest at the university as well. Graduate students don’t pay anywhere near that much. So my push is to prevent the increase of that student life fee as much as possible because that is a direct cost against my students.

Another voice: So Tiffany raised a good point that there is a lot of money that is simply wasted into different fees that students are not to use. But what’s also more important is that this money is going to be going towards a governing board where students will actually use. The reason being is it’s going to be funding clubs, organizations that students want to be part of. So at the same time, while some money might be wasted in other places that people won’t use, this is something that has to be taken to a very big consideration. Also going on David’s point, and also that I mentioned to Keith before, the idea of even making IGB and ABC equivalent for the fact that it’s also majorly of a graduate student side, as I said before, the role reversal would probably be more helpful. But I’m also curious to see what your opinion is on that is, Dan, and maybe we could go somewhere from there.

Okin: I mean, I agree with both Sumi and Keith on this issue that IGB functioning as a graduate student ABC equivalent would be ideal. But again, I want to stress that I think we have not done enough research or do not know enough information about the use and the demand for a board like this across the university, and I think that before we prescribe the structure, we should assess demand and understand what are the concerns of the students, what are the concerns of the student groups, and how do each of those concerns fit into the IGB current structure and where does it not meet those concerns. And so if the primary concern is the one that Andrea brings up, I would say that your solution is probably more beneficial. But if there are, if there is a high demand for undergraduate, graduate participation in groups, then one would really need to consider that as well.

Sen. John Johnson (Law): I apologize for dwelling a little bit more on a flat tax discussion I did appreciate the analogy you drew; however, there might be a federal-state distinction that exists for that. [Laughter] But I guess with going there though, the one thought is that if we were to use a pro rata sort of system instead, where you do it based on who uses it, my thought is a lot of these groups would have a large bulk of—most likely alliances would be with a grad group in a university undergraduate organization, and in many ways doing a flat tax ends up subsidizing undergrads more so because there’d be a large bulk of graduate students who wouldn’t be using it. That’s something I guess in my initial thoughts on what would likely happen.

Another thing that happens a lot of times, the question is chicken or egg, which comes first? Is it the opportunity or the interest? So is it better to start all things being equal and sort of let people with their making usage of the funds. And in many ways because the population would continue to shift, it might be best to sort of make it to stay at a flat tax.

Also I want to make sure that we don’t miss out on a point that was mentioned earlier, sort of the benefits of the cross-pollination that happens between the schools. I’m sort of disappointed compared to what I saw in my undergrad. It just doesn’t seem to naturally happen as much, or at least from my perch where I am. I just feel there’s a disconnect between graduate students and undergraduates to be interacting. Now, it is not lost on me whatsoever, the importance of having a separate undergraduate existence and things along those lines. But on a campus that’s so small geographically, the fact that the interaction is as small as it is concerns me, and I think something like this is a good way to encourage that without trampling too much on your identity. And don’t—you’re very eloquent, is what I was going to say.

Sen. Marcus Johnson (CC): Thank you. [Background kidding]

Okin: Just to address your chicken or egg question, I believe that would be a philosophical difference. So please take my response as my own personal philosophical input on that specific issue. Again, I understand the need for a flat tax as a beginning, but I really do want to advocate a non-student-based monetary source for the initial start-up of IGB as a way to put money in place that does not—. The extra undergraduate time would go to create more student groups and whether or not IGB would house graduate equivalents to some of the current undergraduate student groups that are already in place. Now whether or not those graduate equivalents will merge with undergraduate equivalents remains to be seen. But I do wish to stress that I don’t want to put the chicken or the egg first. I think that if the administration is committed to solidifying the identity of the student as a Columbia University student, they should be willing to front the extra $130,000 out of their $1.5 billion budget to start up this IGB and then reassess the need based upon student groups.

Yu-Lan Duggan (SIPA): I want to piggyback off of what John and Andrea said. And I do thank you for your thoughtfulness, but I am slightly concerned, and I want to address this to everyone, that I feel like there’s a slight disregard for the graduate students. And, you know, I hope you guys understand that we were undergrads once too. I mean, we understand what it’s like to be an undergrad, what it’s like to have a separate distinct life, and on most campuses it is very distinct. But at the same time I hope you guys see us as a resource to you. Most of us have worked at least a good four or five years before we returned to school. You guys are going to be looking for jobs at one point. [Laughter] This march [?] is probably more beneficial for you guys than it would be for us. You could be tapping into us as a resource for future needs, and hopefully we would be an enhancement and not a dilution to what you’re doing. So I just ask that you be considerate of that. And we’re people too, you know, and we have groups, we like to be fun. So just remember that when you’re continuing this conversation. And, you know, at the moment graduate students get, well, obviously I sit on the SIPA Student Association’s board. We actually end up funding the rest of our groups. That just means that we have less money for us. And so if there’s a way to benefit everyone, let’s try to be open minded and let’s try to consider it. Okay?

Okin: I do wish to reiterate that I’m not against IGB in principle. I do believe that it is useful. But I also wish to call into the fact that perhaps if all of the graduate students can remember their undergraduate days and think back to how much graduate contact they wanted to have when they were a junior or a sophomore, and just remember that sometime undergraduates are not interested in venturing out of their spheres as much as we would like them too. And I don’t mean to say that that is a diminishment to the resources that the graduate students will offer. It’s just that sometimes undergraduate life can be described as a bubble, one which students feel safe in and do not really wish to exit, at least until they have to. And that’s why you see a lot of people harking back to their undergraduate years as a 50-year-old man, as an example.

Sen. Gaston (Social Work): So. Yeah, well just to speak to that and then some points of clarification. Sorry. As a graduate student, I’m hearing that. It’s just interesting to get perspective, and I think that it just speaks to the importance of a centralized system because I think that it’s the views that are coming out right now that’s being expressed by ABC and SGB that shows that it’s not being representative of all students, and there is no safeguard for all students. That it is segregated, and so it speaks to the benefits of a centralized system which would be more representative of everyone rather than more for undergrads than grads.

And also just to point out and to reiterate what was said from SIPA that there are hundreds and if not thousands of graduate groups that exist within their own schools that are not receiving money from undergraduate fees. And so IGB covers a very small, I mean significant amount enough to have an IGB, but a very small amount of graduate students that would even be receiving those fees. Because we do get fees from our own student fees that are dealt with at our own schools. So it’s not like all undergraduate fees are serving all the graduate students. So just to clarify that.

And also in terms of centralization, it’s just centralizing in terms of advising. It’s not centralizing admissions or financial aid or anything else like that. That does not happen. So just to clarify that. So [a] centralized system is just for the sole purpose of advising and kind of bridging that gap to address the needs of all students and creating a better safeguard in representing everyone rather than more undergrads than grads.

Okin: To address your first point about, I guess, the segregated nature of this campus. This is again why I think it’s important to go back and examine the constituencies of each university and see whether or not this is something they want. One has to think about whether self-segregation is worse than forced integration. And if the choice to remain in our own sphere is actually looked down upon, one has to wonder what is the actual goal of this. Is it to drag people in kicking and screaming or is it to build willing partnerships? And I can guarantee that forced integration will cause significant more upheaval and problems than any form of self-segregation will on this campus.

So I think that again we really, when talking about IGB as a concept, we need to really think about what do the constituent groups want. And I think that that is the major part that’s been lacking in the formation of this board. I agree with you on a purely idealistic sense that, yes, it would be lovely to have people be able to be compatriots, as undergraduates and graduates, but I don’t know if that is the desire or mentality, and I also don’t know if it is the place of the student governance to force that upon our students.

Gaston: I don’t think that the argument is to bring students together to hold hands and sing songs. We’re talking about an objective governing board that’s going to step back and say, I may be an undergraduate, but I need to think of the entire student body and not just undergraduate needs. Because a central governing board would think of the needs of everyone. And I don’t think that that’s happening right now, and I think a need springs up when students aren’t being heard, aren’t being represented. And so it’s not to drag anyone kicking and screaming. It’s to create an objective situation where everyone is being heard on a. . . Looking at everyone’s needs, not. . . Am I making sense now?

Okin: I understand what you’re saying. But I again want to reiterate that I’m not against IGB or the concept of IGB.

Gaston: Oh, I’m talking about centralization, not specifically IGB.

Okin: Okay. Well, I still think that centralization itself then will not pay credence to the individual needs of the undergraduates or the graduate schools that may arise. So a centralized system will eventually wash out the identities of each of the individual schools in my personal opinion.

Gaston: Okay. I see your opinion.

Okin: And I see like, I think that if you centralize student group advising, it may be very excellent at advising something like IGB, but I can hardly imagine every single group in the university becoming a member of the IGB, and I perfectly expect that the Business School Follies will remain a Business School group and the Varsity Show will remain an undergraduate student group. And my concern is what happens to their concerns. In a centralized system no one will understand what those individual groups need because their needs are specific to those schools. So a centralized system will wash that out, and that’s what I mean by washing out, I think. Does that clarify?

Riano: You know, I love all of you. However, it is 12:50 and we have other people to speak. And while we’re supposed to be at the Senate meeting, you know, we’re going to keep working on this. I’m going to take one more question and we’re going to move on to Seth. I know Danielle’s been really trying to push on this. So Danielle, please. Thank you.

Sen. Wolfe (Barnard): I just really want to make a very quick clarification. The reason that we decided to form the IGB was because of demand from the interschool student groups, and that also includes student groups that were a combination of undergraduates and graduates. The demand is already there, and there’s a large portion of the undergraduate community that wants to have this be an option. There are students that are joint program with Barnard and SIPA that would I’m sure love to have an opportunity to have a student group that is a combination of those for advising purposes and for planning programs. There is a demand on our campus for groups that do apply to both of those, and I think we can’t deny that, and that’s one of the reasons that we decided to form this board, as a reaction to that demand. So it’s not just us saying, “Oh, let’s have this board because it would make sense.” It’s a reaction to a demand that’s already there.

And I do totally understand the idea of,after this gets started,a re-evaluation of the demand and funds after the fact. But I think we’re sort of approaching this in the wrong way in saying that, you know, we should try and figure these things out now. I do think it has to be an evaluation after the fact, and obviously next year it’s going to be different, and there isn’t going to be that $130,000 surplus. At least I hope that the administration would not cause that to happen again. It should be a re-evaluation, but it’s because of a demand, not just because of. . .

Okin: Just to briefly respond, and I’m sorry to keep taking more of your time. But the issue with the re-evaluation that I see is that every single person in this room will not be here in two years. So when you put a system in place, and say that in two years re-evaluation. I say that because the Senate term is two years.

Riano: I could be here for a very long time if I never graduate.

Okin: Yes, I’m sure all of us have been threatened with the “You may not graduate.” But the re-evaluation scheme has its flaw in the fact that students do continuously cycle through this university. The journalism students are here for ten months. That itself means that they’re—I remember that because you said that last week. [Laughter] But I mean, just to be brutally honest I guess, I worry about a re-evaluation because, or that being put in place, because one can definitely see that not happening in two years which is when it would happen. So by actually forcing a re-evaluation of the system by using administrative funds as opposed to student funds, it guarantees that there will be a re-evaluation after the trial year for IGB, and that way it will give us a reason to have introspection and make sure that this is functioning the way it should. And my worry is that if we do not do that, it will just continue in perpetuity until about ten years from now when someone says, Um, this doesn’t really work anymore, and then it just disappears or moves into something new.

Riano: Thank you, Dan. [Background conversation]

Seth Flexman (president of the Columbia College student body): I was actually hoping I would be able to speak last because I did not come in with prepared thoughts and proposals and schematics and diagrams and etc. I’m starting a lot from first principles right now, and that’s actually one of my concerns, that this whole conversation sort of took me by surprise.

So all right. So we’re here to talk about student group organization and oversight, I’m assuming, because someone has a concern with how student group organization oversight happens. And so just to be, I guess, like a little parochial for a second, I want you to know where I’m coming from on this.

I don’t have a problem with how it works right now. I’m very happy with how it works right now. Most Columbia College students are very happy with how it works right now. And I do understand that there is a demand within even my student body for more interaction with graduate students, and so IGB’s a good idea. My concern comes from the fact that if we don’t have a problem with our student advising, and I think it’s actually getting better. Yet, there’s a problem with the fact because there are a lot of proposals to change the system that we’re working under, and people keep throwing around the word centralization, and I’m not really sure what people are talking about because it’s just such a word. But centralization is an idea that people keep throwing around, and I am afraid that we are proposing changes to a system, like an advising system, that right now is mostly used by Columbia College students, that is mostly paid for by Columbia College students and Columbia College alumni, and that we are both happy with, alumni and students from Columbia College.

And so in moving forward, I think that the goals of this group are good. You guys see an opportunity for more student life interaction between graduate students and undergrads and you see a demand for it, and so you want to be able to find a place to put all that demand. My concern is that in creating an IGB, you will then be taking the system from Columbia College and centralizing it when that’s not what we want, and it’s our system. And I know that sounds parochial to a certain extent, but I think if you guys are going to recommend centralizing a system mostly used by Columbia College and paid for by Columbia College, it would be nice if we had, if this whole council wasn’t, you know, hit us by surprise. As all of a sudden I feel like I have to come in here and defend our system that we use and pay for because someone’s about to take it away from us and centralize it. And that’s a bit unsettling.

So IGB’s a great idea. It’d be great if IGB had advising. And I hope that we can find a way to find advising for IGB. I would just recommend that option one is not to take the system that Columbia College students are using a majority of and just moving it without our knowledge of what’s really going on. And that’s my main I guess thought towards this whole panel. Yeah.

Sen. Marcus Johnson (Columbia College): So, Seth, thanks.

Riano: Marcus, welcome.

Marcus Johnson: And I know we’ve had some sort of off-line discussions here beforehand, but I think we both are probably hearing more than we knew before. And I want to actually clarify some things because like you said, centralization is something that’s being thrown around right now. So—I think Dan and Keith both said that they wished that the governing boards or their councils had been brought into the discussion earlier. And what I want to say is, you know, sitting on this caucus as co-chair and sitting on Columbia College Student Council, what I’ve seen over the last year has been the formation of IGB in a response to the demand by graduate groups that already kind of existed between graduate and undergraduates, that didn’t really have anywhere to get funding from.

So the idea of IGB is to not destroy ABC or subsume anything that already exists, but rather to be another avenue of funding so that we can have a group that has undergrads in it, has graduate students in it, but can also have a graduate student as president or treasurer one day, should they want to do that. So that’s what IGB is for and about, just to be another avenue, another source of funding, another way for groups to get recognized that want to be recognized, that can’t be recognized.

As far as centralizing all of student affairs or something that may seem a little more vague, perhaps a lot, very scary to some of us undergrads, I think that is a different proposal, a different resolution I believe that started in your council, in the GS student council last week. Right?

Riano: Oh, the resolution?

Marcus Johnson: The resolution, right. So that was brought up and immediately in response to that we’re having this hearing. So there’s not been sort of back door conversations, and no one’s trying to like –

Riano: Undermine.

Marcus Johnson: --undermine undergraduate student life without, you know, without proper, without due process. Is that the proper word? [Laughter] So, you know, please don’t leave here thinking that the Student Affairs Committee has been undermining undergraduate due process. No. No. No. No. [Laughter] I mean that’s actually what I want to say. I just want to clarify that there’s a difference between, we haven’t been trying to do that. IGB-- we wanted to….recognize groups that want to be recognized, but as far as centralization—and we’re having these discussions right now at the same time, but they are two slightly distinct discussions.

Riano: So I’m going to take three different other questions and then we are going to move on because we are short on time. John first.

Sen John Johnson (Law): I think that’s okay usage, of due process. I guess my question is, Is that the perception of IGB here, or is that getting created from this conversation? Like has the conversation taken a path to create this perception that IGB is about sort of taking away from the undergraduate student life, because quite frankly that’s the last thing that was on our minds in doing that. And so I would hope to try and clarify that.

To me it was a matter of addressing the fact that there was a discrete domain of groups that were left outside, you know, these concentric circles or whatever that exist from the current structure that is here. So as much that I can try and get—I mean I know you can’t necessarily take my word for it. I’m a lawyer in training, not necessarily trusted. But that is what we had in mind when we were pushing this forward, and I guess I just want to become clear on that. Because I thought here the issue in terms of concern with centralization was about whether, how the role of ABC, SGB, that dynamic was going to shift, and I saw more of IGB as more just of an issue off on the side. So to the extent that you could speak to that, of what you gathered the student perception to be, and whether this is more a concern that’s been created by maybe us misspeaking or dwelling on the wrong issue.

Okin: If you want, I can take a bunch of questions. If you want to do the questions and I’ll answer.

Sen. Julia Stoyanovich (Stu., GSAS/NS): I cannot speak for all graduate students, but I do speak for GSAS students. And first of all, we don’t want to be centralized either. I mean, you probably wouldn’t be surprised to hear that graduate students also like to socialize within their own group just as undergrads do. And in fact it doesn’t seem to us that there is a need for a graduate student equivalent of the ABC, because graduate students are independent. GSAS students are separate from Law School students, from Business School students, and we do not interact as much. But groups do come to us that have compositions that do not allow us to recognize them, and this is really the only reason that we are thinking about IGB. We do not want to give up our autonomy either, and we absolutely respect your point of view that, I mean, you want to stay independent and independent from the rest of the students and from the administration. So this is really just an addition to the existing structure. It is not—centralization is a really loud word that is said, but I don’t think that this is what we need. Yeah, and also just to add, in an ideal world a group should not, the group composition and the composition of the government of the group. should not be based on who’s funding the group, but rather on the interest. Right? And there needs to be outlet for groups like that whose composition changes, and it’s very difficult to keep half undergrad once they’re GSAS.

Sen. Wolfe (Barnard): Just to focus our conversation a little more, I think the reason that we’re talking about the IGB was because it was looked at as a model of a different type of functioning governing board than others, and that’s why we brought IGB into this conversation, although we started focusing more on it than the situation with SGB and ABC changes. I think what Julia just said is exactly the thing that’s in my mind of what needs to be addressed, is this individual school autonomy. And just a conversation about undergraduate schools, the idea of SGB moving under Dean Colombo as it already has, for us, for Barnard students and GS students, is an issue of the way that like the schools relate to each other and the way that advising relates amongst the undergraduate community.

The idea of IGB as a model for that. Each of the graduate schools has its own student affairs and has its autonomy, but the IGB is created for those student groups that want to come together cross school. And that’s the beauty of SGB, is for student groups that want to come together cross school, and it is funded by all of the different undergraduate schools. It is on a, you know, proportion basis, but yet the funding is there.

I completely understand in the case of ABC why Columbia College and SEAS would want to hold on to that because, or at least Barnard does not pay into it. And I understand you wanting to keep autonomy for your school because for CC and SEAS that is your only governing board for just CC and SEAS students. Barnard has its own system, which is a great system, and as I recall GS does have a very small handful of clubs that are just recognized by GS as well.

Riano: We fund ABC.

Wolfe: Right. You fund ABC, but Barnard doesn’t fund ABC. But I guess my idea for this is the idea of centralization would be [that] four governing boards that are funded and paid into by multiple schools should have advising recognition for those, their particular school. Because to me it does not make sense, you know, based on the IGB model is what we’re bringing IGB in here for. For Barnard students to be a part of SGB and to still be able to hold leadership roles, etc., when they’re under a student affairs model that is specifically for CC and SEAS students, and I think that that’s a similar argument. That’s why GS students came up with the proposal, and we were using IGB as a model of interschool activity, and although the rotating system may have its faults and may not function in the future, that idea of all of the schools being represented at one point or another is what our argument is, I think. So that’s that’s just to base it for you on that.

Flaxman: Thank you for the clarification, everyone. In a whirlwind of answers addressed to everyone, I think the two main concerns that I’m sort of just guessing, feeling out from what you said, that the concerns that this panel or this committee was trying to address was one, how do you advise groups? Well, first what do you do with groups that have students from all over the university in them, and then after you create IGB, how do you advise those groups? And then, and correct me if I’m wrong, but is that--? It’s not like--

The other problem that’s coming up is with SGB moving into Student Affairs just paid for by CC and SEAS, why should Barnard or GS students go to their advisers, if those advisers are just CC, SEAS advisers? So there are sort of two distinct concerns that are trying to be addressed.

For both, I’ll just, and to a certain extent repeat what I said before. I think IGB was great. I think it’s good that we’re meeting that demand, and at the same time, I also think the move of SGB was good because I think they’ll get better advising resources in Student Affairs. So now we’re just set with a new set of problems to solve. My only comments are about what solutions to choose for those new problems, and this is what you—this committee, I think—will be thinking about. How do we solve these problems? And I want to recommend that the solution you don’t choose for solving these problems is centralizing a system that the majority of Columbia College students and alumni pay for. That’s my main concern because I came here thinking, Oh, they want advising for IGB, while the obvious solution is just to take away advising from CC and move it into central administration, and that’s not what Columbia College students want. And then I saw this problem of SGB is now, the governing board is paid for and serves all undergraduate bodies, but the advising above that is just for two. And there are solutions there. I just want to make sure the solution is not taking Columbia College advising and centralizing it. There may be other, better solutions. And so that was, and so the perception I think is, John, I think the perception about taking away is not where we are, but I wanted to say that’s where we could be. And so IGB is a good idea, and I want it to stay that way as to how it’s perceived, and not start entering into an area where the perception would be, Oh my God, they’re taking away our student advising. What’s going on? Cause that I think it’s dangerous territory to be in. So, I hope I addressed everyone’s questions.

Riano: Thank you very much, Seth. We appreciate that.

Eman Bataineh (president of the Student Government Association, Barnard College): I’m going to try to speak as concisely as possible and sort of bring together everything that’s put on the table.

So I think that a lot of the concern that’s coming out of the undergraduate presidents that have spoken so far is the fact that IGB proposal or constitution was put forth at the same time that the proposal presented by the General Studies Student Council for centralizing SGB was put forth. So I wanted to make sure that we’re drawing that distinction between the IGB and the SGB proposal. So let’s talk about IGB first.

I think that there’s a very definite and well-known need for IGB for student groups who want to organize graduate students and undergraduate students. And I know that Barnard does full support of the IGB. I have had my concerns and I’ve sort of talked with our administration about the $5 flat tax or whatever you want to call it, and I think that there’s enough benefit for students who want to, who are part of a pre-professional programs or students who are part of cultural groups or religious groups and a ton of other variety of groups that would really benefit from IGB. So I know that we’re willing to put that $5 addition to our student fees. So that’s my little bit about IGB—full support, essentially.

When it comes to centralizing ABC, SGB and then moving on to even club sports governing board, I wanted to sort of explain where SGA stands in terms of all these undergraduate governing boards, so you know where I’m coming in. So SGA is, because we’re an affiliate—Barnard has their own president, their own provost, and their own trustees—we have both a student government as a student council or what’s called representative council, and we also have our own sort of governing board functions. So we have a lot more than just a handful of groups that we recognize separately. So we have, you know, our mini SGB. But actually it’s more like a mini ABC because they’re cultural groups and program groups as opposed to religion and political, [for] which we pay for into SGB. But we also have our student council-like factor of it that we take those funds to fund SGB and NCI. NCI is community impact. Okay. We all know that.

So when it comes to centralizing SGB, which we pay for in ratio, we have concerns about that because the problem with centralizing [?] which primarily serves an undergraduate population in that it’s funded by undergraduate student councils. As an affiliate we have concerns of putting it under the Columbia administration because there’s a structural bias there. To have SUB groups advised by Columbia College and SEAS advising is a definite ideological bias in terms of who’s representing the advising part. Has that transformed into a practical problem, an on-the-ground problem? Not yet. I use the word “yet” because, you know, the structure [is] transformed eventually into practice. Maybe.

I think that the solution for the SGB being under advising of Dean Columbo’s office is to work with SGB. To have statutes in their constitution that make sure that General Studies students and Barnard students, and that’s my constituency, will never feel marginalized in those groups. And that’s why I appreciate the work that Sakib has done in terms of having that, you know, minimum of two faculty advisers from Barnard. [Tape skips] . . . who’s the dean of the College at Barnard, and the SDA has worked with college activities at Barnard. There’s been a partnership, and I cannot say that our administration or that our students have felt marginalized by the shift to Dean Colombo’s office. And that’s just what’s happening. I’m still saying there is a definite structural ideological problem with having it under, you know, Dean Colombo’s offices. But do I have the solution for it? No. Was the ideal situation having it under the chaplain? Maybe. But, you know, currently I don’t think that centralizing it under the provost or under the president is going to offer a better solution.

So keeping IGB and SGB separate. You can ask me questions.

Riano: Awesome. We’re going to have probably two or three questions because we have to move on. Mr. John.

Sen. John Johnson (Law): Real quick. We’ll do this conversation stuff. With the Barnard affiliation with SGB, is there Barnard funding that’s going into that structure?

Bataineh: It’s paid for in full ratio.

John Johnson: Excellent. So that’s the end of my question.

Bataineh: I’m either uninteresting or you guys are really tired. Okay. Thank you.

Riano: Thank you very much. No, we appreciate that. And last on the agenda—no, that was good, you shut us off, that’s even better—is Susanna.

Susannah Karlsson (student body president, School of General Studies): Good afternoon everyone and thank you for having me. I’m hoping to encapsulate some of the more general points and deal with both the short-term issue that we’re looking at today, as well as a more macro level, a more long-term solution. So because it’s been brought up, and it’s probably appropriate, I’ll speak to the GSSC resolution first if that’s okay. Talk to you about our logic and what we hope to accomplish by that, and what kind of conversation we hope to stimulate, which is indeed happening here today, and hopefully what a long-term outcome would be.

First of all, what concerns me up to this point in the conversation that we’ve been having are these broad distinctions between graduate and undergraduate. I want to make clear that there is an undergraduate college, namely, the School of General Studies, who is not being characterized by the undergraduate comments that are being made in this larger conversation. There is indeed a third undergraduate college who I represent, whose concerns and needs are not being taken into account and consideration. With that said, however, as my colleague Mr. Okin so eloquently extolled the virtues of SDA, this is not about a diminishing of SDA. We’ve had a good and productive and healthy relationship, as I believe Barnard has as well. This is not at all an indictment on any particular individual or any particular practice. We indeed have been served at their benevolence and at their benevolence only. And the question that I would pose to this body and that I would challenge you to think about is, Should an entire student body be dependent upon the benevolence of another student body and administration?

I believe that that is inappropriate fundamentally. We hope to have a larger say and a larger stake in these matters at the end of the day. But I would encourage you to think about the third factor of the three undergraduate student bodies here at Columbia. One is not being accounted for, and I hope that in your deliberations when we’re done here that you will indeed consider the needs and wants of those students as well.

As Eman [Bataineh] pointed out, this is not necessarily a reaction to specific deficiencies in a system, but rather the potential for those deficiencies and the need rather to deal with a long-term solution before one is needed. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and I think that this has such potential to blow up in one’s face. I don’t believe that the ultimate long-term solution is to add yet one more layer to a system of bureaucracy that’s focused under a specific college by either GS paying into it, and then, you know, our administration partially funds Dean Colombo’s office under Student Affairs, and then to what end? would be the challenge that I would pose.

So if Law School students start to participate, which neither SGB or ABC’s constitutions prohibit, and indeed graduate students, as has been acknowledged by my colleagues, do participate in these student groups. That being said, if that participation goes up, will the Law School or the Business School or the School of Social Work then be asked to pay into Dean Colombo’s office? So again, I don’t know that the solutions that are being proposed up to this point are those that are long-term solutions. Indeed, that would deal with the immediate issue of whether or not the School of General Studies, as the third undergraduate body, is being directly represented by these advisers and deans. But I would encourage you to think about a more long-term solution, a more feasible solution, and I will be the lone dissenter here. I absolutely believe that centralization is the right way to go. On behalf of my student body and certainly with the resolution that was passed unanimously by our student council, we believe that the only way to get this fair representation, not just for GS, but in the bigger picture, for graduate students, to facilitate some of this cross-pollination that you all have mentioned, the only way to go is centralization.

Now with that said, I want to acknowledge Sakib and Keith’s concerns about what iteration[?] that might take and what that might look like and potential problems that might arise from that, and this kind of knee-jerk fear of, you know, the administration. But I also want to point out that, as you all very well know, when students take an active hand in calling for something and creating something that didn’t exist before, we also have a large hand in creating it. That would be my hope. We also have a large amount of input into how that organization looks, and I would certainly hope that my fellow student leaders and the Senate obviously would take an active hand and be active participants in deciding what that office should look like so as to meet the needs of ABC and SGB and the various groups and students and individuals that are participating in these groups.

So, you know, indeed there are ways to think about this and precisely if the students are the ones calling for it, I do believe that we would have an active hand in deciding how that looks and making sure that the iteration that that takes is in the absolute best interest of those that it is charged with representing. Once again, I don’t think that patching up a non-representative system is a long-term solution that’s a real feasible option. I don’t further believe that isolating, segregating in any way student life is a productive endeavor for any group of students, graduate or undergraduate. Perhaps my own biases and the fact that I’m speaking on behalf of a school whose mean age is twenty-nine, I believe…. I mean, we’re kind of excited about that. It’s an interesting proposition to have the idea of cross-pollination between graduate students and people of an older age set. So I see a lot of material benefits particularly for my student body, but indeed for the university as a whole. Again, graduate students are participating in these clubs and organizations. Constitutions allow that participation, whether or not they’re limited in cases of specific groups. But in general neither ABC nor SGB’s constitution excludes graduate students. So I would encourage you to think about to what end. You know, if these students are participating in these groups, if these students are actively partaking of these, you know, activities, what sense does it make now to have that remain in a localized model? Are we then going to ask every single graduate student to pay into Dean Colombo’s office as GS has been asked to do?

So, you know, I would encourage you to think about more of the long-term implications here, and we’re certainly, the School of General Studies has not taken a frozen position on this. We’re certainly willing to talk to our colleagues and all of you about other ways of solving the problem of this third undergraduate school and making sure that those interests are represented. So with that I will say, Go centralization, and I encourage you to.

Riano: Thank you Susannah. Danielle, Andrea.

Sen. Wolfe (Barnard): I just want to thank you for those comments. I couldn’t have put it better myself. I just really feel like Columbia University as a whole, including all of its affiliates, I think we have an incredibly unique community here—unique in the sense that we have multiple undergraduate communities that function as one and also function as autonomous bodies. We have graduate students that share very much in our campus life, although they don’t share in our residential life. And they share in our student group life. And I think that if we keep denying the fact that there is one large community that we all are a part of and keep trying to fix on this idea of autonomy, autonomy, autonomy, we are not really facilitating that community that a lot of students want to see happen. And I think that we have a very unique opportunity to be one Columbia University community. And I think that that would be to our benefit, rather than trying to be sectioned off and partitioned in our separate worlds. Because as we all know, that’s not the way our community functions. As a Barnard student, I know that we do not function separate from Columbia University, and I’m sure all of us understand that, or I hope all of us understand that. And that’s one of the reasons I think we’re having this discussion, and I hope that we can work towards that idea of a greater university community.

Karlsson: Absolutely. And thank you for that. And I do want to point out as far as your comments as to autonomy, it does beg the question as far as the concerns that both Keith and Sakib brought up about whether or not the administration would have some increased sway by a new centralized model. And certainly the GSSC and me personally—we are not calling for any less autonomy than the students, the student leaders have over those student groups, nor any constitutional changes. What we’re more looking at is the layer of oversight above that. And there’s a huge fundamental difference between those two things. And as you say, we are supposed to be Columbia. It’s not GS or it’s not Barnard, not, you know, Law School. At the end of the day we live here [as] a community, and these are the ties that bind. And indeed, although a lot of people talk about it, very few are willing to be about it. And when the time comes to walk the walk, at a time like this where we have a moment about critically the divisions that exist between our schools, we have a moment where we can decide to [?] them and make them real by reaffirming them with our structure, or to really challenge them by deciding to move towards a more unified model. And I would certainly challenge this body to think about unity.

Hernandez (president of ABC): I would like to hear actually from undergraduate, other undergraduate institutions as to how much they want to preserve their undergraduate life identity within their own college, versus how much they want to see it as a unified undergraduate life.

Karlsson: Do you mean specifically undergraduate or undergraduate and graduate together?

Hernandez: Specifically undergraduate.

Karlsson: Just undergraduate.

Hernandez: That’s how I feel. That’s why I came to Columbia College, and I had a lot of great other opportunities for other great places, but I chose Columbia College because it was unique. There are 26,000 students in the school, and there are only four that are bigger than my school. But I should ask another question. If the undergraduate schools [inaudible] do not want to centralize, would GS go along with other schools and allow [can’t hear, buzzing in tape]. . . . I mean, you’re supposing that there’s an option for those two things.

Riano: Go ahead Susanna. But, however, there is a time constraint.

Karlsson: Keep it quick. Is that what you’re saying?

Riano: Keep it quick, please. Thank you.

Karlsson: I mean, it’s not a quick question. I mean, if your question is, would GS splinter off on its own and go it alone? I’m not sure that that’s really the conversation we’re having at the moment, and I’m not sure I’m being asked to make a decision as to, Does GS ally itself with the graduate schools? That’s certainly not been a question that we’ve considered. It’s not anything that we’ve recommended. We’re very much interested in being a member of a united Columbia community, and to us that means not just the undergraduate community, but the entire Columbia community. As you know personally and my colleagues certainly, GS has striven for this kind of place at the table, and this stakeholder position at the table as one of the smaller colleges and as one of the ones who has remained non-traditional and unattached to Columbia College, as SEAS has become. So we’re kind of out there on our own, and we’ve been a lone ranger, and we’re certainly interested in seeing a united undergraduate community and are also interested in seeing a larger Columbia community. We are indeed Columbians and let’s not forget that.

John Johnson (Law): I guess…one of the things you’re talking about was, if law schools are inundating some of these undergraduate groups, should they then be expected to pay, and so the centralization makes sense. Now while I agree with the greater sense of one Columbia community, what about more along the lines of while trying to achieve that through having a space for groups to interact, but I sort of get the sense that if it’s an undergraduate group, or an undergraduate group, you know, origin, that if I’m there as a guest to the group to be used how I can as a law school student. Similarly, if I’m a law school and an undergraduate comes to my group, they’re there through the benefit if they can, but are more so a guest. I mean, what are your thoughts on maintaining that, and I think I guess within the greater undergraduate community there’s a more nuanced scenario figuring out how much the one that should be there among the divisions that exist. At least that’s the impression that I get from graduate schools. I mean, what do you feel about that approach?

Karlsson: I would point out that regardless of what the de facto participation is that neither of these organizations’ constitutions limit or prohibit the participation of graduate students, except that certain and specific leadership positions cannot be held by graduate students. However, these are not constitutionally or otherwise defined as undergraduate student groups. They aren’t. Indeed, that’s who uses them most frequently, and those are the councils where the money comes from because those are the students who are using these groups in the largest numbers. That is not to say, however, that that’s a static situation. It’s not to say that as, you know, we start having these conversations that participation increases from a particular school. None of us can predict what tomorrow’s going to look like, and perhaps there’s a huge, you know, flurry of interest in activity as a result of some of the activities that will be hosted and funded by the IGB. But I will say that, you know, while we’re trying to encourage and really motivate people to create some of these bridges, we’re also inherently limiting them if we decide that some of these groups are undergraduate and some of them are graduate. I think the beauty of what the IGB represents is that it’s people, it’s interspaced, it’s content based and not affiliation based. I think it’s an arbitrary distinction, it’s a fluid distinction, and as someone up here said a moment ago, all of you were undergrads at one point as well, and indeed probably most people in this room will be graduate students at some point. So I mean those boundaries are quite fluid, and I wouldn’t say that there’s—I don’t swear as tight allegiance to undergraduate student life as perhaps my colleagues have. I do recognize that there are differences and distinctions, and I would also want to clarify now that we’re talking about this that, you know, when we talk about student affairs under Dean Colombo’s office, what I’m referencing at least specifically is the student life function under the Student Affairs office, clearly not admissions, clearly not financial aid. I think that goes without saying. But what we’re talking about specifically are the student life components, the student life elements. That which is common to every single student here at Columbia, not matter what their affiliation is, no matter their graduate or undergraduate status. So that is something that we all have in common. That is something that we all share, and a part of our student life here that we all partake in. And that’s, you know, for me that begs the question of how does a localized model make sense any more if that’s the case. No, we’re done. Thank you so much for having us.

Riano: Hearing adjourned. Thank you everybody for coming. Off to the Senate meeting. Thank you.

The session ended at about 1:20 pm.