In Defense
of Orgo Night #4
On Thursday, December 15, 2016,
at midnight, the Columbia University Marching Band (“the cleverest band in the
world™”) performed a show of music and satirical comedy in sub-freezing
temperatures on the steps outside Butler Library on the Columbia campus. Since 1975 the Band has performed a similar
show, dubbed “Orgo Night,” (because the show happens on the eve of the organic
chemistry final) in which the Band skewers university administration, other Ivy
schools, rival student groups, and the world in general in a witty and often
raunchy program. The location of the
show on December 15, however, was unusual.
Traditionally the band marches into the main College Reading Room inside
Butler Library, known as Room 209, to the strains of the school fight song
before launching into its program. This
scheduled study break for the assembled students who choose to study for finals
in that room typically lasts between 30 and 45 minutes. This fall, however, Vice-Provost and recently
hired Head Librarian Ann D. Thornton, with the support of President Lee Bollinger
and Columbia College Dean James Valentini, banned the Band from the
library. The ban, which was not
discussed with the Band or with university students in advance, was announced
only days before the scheduled event.
Ms. Thornton stated that the reason for the sudden change in tradition
was a desire to maintain quiet study space inside the library, and President
Bollinger publicly maintained that it was based on “complaints” from students
about the Orgo Night show. University
officials claimed that the ban was not related to the content of the shows and
that they were not trying to censor the Band’s speech. The university offered to permit the Band to
stage the show in a different location at midnight, but the Band chose to stage
its show outside the library as a protest, which was attended by several
hundred students.
Since the sudden and unexpected
eviction of the Band from the library, all four undergraduate student councils
have called for reversal of the decision, the editors of the Spectator and BWOG
have issued statements of support for the Band, and many alumni have sent
letters of protest. University officials
have remained resolute in their decision, however. This series of essays, drafted by concerned
alumni, addresses the university’s claimed reasoning for its decision, the
process by which it was implemented, and the reasons why the decision should be
reconsidered.
Earlier essays in the series can be accessed by the links in the right margin.
H
Quiet Study Requestors Probably Don’t Exist
President Bollinger and Dean
Valentini have assured us that censorship of the Band was not the reason why
Orgo Night was suddenly canceled without notice or discussion. The decision had nothing to do with the
content of the show, according to Bollinger’s public statement to the
university Senate. Columbia would never
censor student speech. The only reason
he has offered for why the university took this drastic action is the asserted
existence of “complaints” from students.
Of course, attempting to cancel the show in response to complaints from
students who don’t like the content of the Orgo Night show would be
content-based censorship, and President Bollinger has assured us that this was
not the case. A future essay will
examine the evidence suggesting that content-based censorship was, in fact,
President Bollinger’s real motive here, but first we must investigate whether
the asserted basis for the action against the Band has any plausibility.
The university administration is claiming that it received complaints
from students who objected to having their finals studying “disrupted” by the
Orgo Night show. The Vice-President for
Alumni Relations confirmed that the action was an attempt to avoid “a
circumstance that would force students who are studying in the library to leave
and disrupt their work.” Head Librarian
Ann Thornton wrote in response to an alumni protest that the Orgo Night show
has been “a source of stress including the stress of having to find alternate
space to study” and that barring the Band from entering the Library is an
attempt to avoid “disrupting those who wish to study then” (meaning at midnight
in Butler 209).
When leaders of the Band met with
Ms. Thornton and Provost John Coatsworth during the few days between the
announcement that the Band was barred from the library and the scheduled
December 15th show, the new Head Librarian stated only that she felt
the show was inappropriate because it disrupted important study space. At that time, Ms. Thornton did not even
assert the existence of student complaints, casting into doubt President
Bollinger’s later claim that there were, in fact, specific complaints about
disrupted studies.
Thus, the argument put forward by the university for why
there was a compelling need to alter the Orgo Night tradition in the fall of
2016 is that the performance is a “disruption” to students who would prefer to
use Butler 209 as quiet study space on this important night during reading week
and who feel “stress” about finding an alternate study location. According to President Bollinger, at least
some of these students have complained about having their studies disrupted. We have referred to these students in earlier
essays as the “Quiet Study Requestors.” Elsewhere we have explained why, even if these
hypothetical students really exist and really have raised complaints, the
balance of equities tilts decidedly in favor of accommodating their quiet study
in other library locations rather than disrupting the Orgo Night tradition. Here, we will examine the question of whether
the Quiet Study Requestors really exist and whether the concerns expressed by
President Bollinger and Ms. Thornton are even possibly valid.
We can postulate that the Quiet
Study Requestors are students who: (a) would prefer to study in Butler 209 on
Orgo Night, (b) have a good reason for that preference such that an alternate
library location would be an inconvenience; and some of whom (c) have
complained to somebody in university administration based solely on the
disruption to their study time and not based on the content of the Orgo Night
show. University administration has
decided that the interests of the Quiet Study Requestors outweighs the
interests of the students who welcome the Band’s appearance in Butler 209 and
the interests of the Band members. As
such, we would expect that there must be a lot of them. But, all evidence suggests the contrary.
We may assume that there could be
some students who regularly study in Butler 209 but who avoid Butler on Orgo
Night. If Ms. Thornton were seriously interested
in evaluating the number of such students, the process would be fairly
simple. Step one would be to survey
students actually using Butler 209 during the course of the semester outside of
reading week to ask them whether they planned to use that space during reading
week, and whether they planned to be there for Orgo Night or, if not, whether
they cared much (or at all) about having to use other space. Those students who planned to avoid Butler on
Orgo Night, and who indicated that they cared and would prefer to use Butler,
could be counted as Quiet Study Requestors, whether they specifically
complained or not.
Of course, not all students who use
Butler 209 during reading week also use that space at other times. But, students being creatures of habit, the
“regulars” in Butler 209 would be the logical place to start. That is, if the administration were seriously
attempting to gather relevant data about the issue. Ann Thornton has not asserted that she
conducted any such survey. Since she
would be the logical driver and/or accumulator of such a data gathering effort,
we can conclude with confidence that no such data was ever collected.
Assessing the actual study patterns
of non-regulars in Butler is more difficult.
Such students, who don’t regularly study in Butler, should be considered
of lesser value in the discussion since those students are not being displaced
from their regular location on Orgo Night.
Rather, they are merely being deprived of one option among several for
them to use that is already different from their normal study pattern. While some students might, in the absence of
Orgo Night, choose to join friends in Butler 209 despite not normally studying
there, the displacement of a few such students for one night (or an hour or
two) is of minor concern. In any case,
the university has apparently not attempted to identify any students who fall
into this category.
Based on the absence of any
assertions by Ms. Thornton or President Bollinger that data exists to support
the decision to ban Orgo Night from the library, it is a near certainty that no
due diligence was ever undertaken. While
Ms. Thornton claims that she spent the better part of the fall semester
lobbying university Deans to support her assault on the Band, we see no
evidence that she spent any of that time conducting surveys, having discussions
with students, or doing any other actual research to determine whether there
was a real problem.
Without any other data, Ms. Thornton
and President Bollinger are left only with data from students who actually complained
about the Orgo Night show interfering with their studies. President Bollinger affirmatively asserted the
existence of such complaints, and Ms. Thornton implied their existence in her
written defense of her actions, if not during her discussions with Band
leaders. If there were complaints, they
could have come to Ms. Thornton (or others in university administration) as
oral statements, phone calls, or electronic communications. A competent administrator would undoubtedly
keep track of such complaints, at least after the first few. Certainly, a competent administrator who was new
to the school and yet seeking the approval of university Deans for her plan to
alter a long-standing university tradition would do so only after compiling
some compelling evidence that there is a problem that needs addressing. Even if complaints were oral, at the point
that Ms. Thornton determined that this was a problem of sufficient proportion
to warrant severe action like banning the Band from the library, a competent
administrator would begin to track the complaints and record them. Certainly, telephone messages would be
catalogued or retained, and emails or texts would be printed and/or retained
electronically to document the magnitude of the problem.
Further, if there were complaining
students, Ms. Thornton would be expected to make two critical inquiries after
each complaint. First, she should ask
whether the complaining student regularly studies in Butler 209 during other
times of the year. Second, she should
ask why the student is objecting to the show – based on not enjoying its
content, or just because of the interruption to their studies. Without knowing the answers to the former
question, Ms. Thornton cannot know the extent of the problem, and without the
answers to the latter, she cannot know whether the objection to Orgo Night is
based on the disruption factor or the content.
Of course, as a newcomer to Columbia, Ms. Thornton might be forgiven for
not understanding that there have been past objections to the content of the Orgo
Night show and she might not have appreciated the distinction. Or, it is possible that if there were only a
few complaints over a long period of time she might not have thought about the
need to assess them critically. But
certainly, if there were many complaints, or upon reaching the point where it
seemed to her that the issue was becoming serious, a competent administrator
would begin collecting and retaining the relevant data.
Given the seriousness of this issue and the controversy it
has generated to date, one would expect that if there were data, it would have
been disclosed by now. Yet, in many
different communications with protesting alumni, and in many public statements
from the individuals involved, nobody in a position to know has asserted that
any data exists that documents the existence of a real problem. The only logical conclusion to draw from the
absence of any data is that the claimed complaints do not exist. It is possible that there were a few
complaints and that Ms. Thornton never bothered to investigate whether the
complaints were based on the content of the shows and never bothered to inquire
about whether the complaining students actually use Butler 209 as their
preferred study location. But, even the
latter possibility would suggest only a few scattered complaints, and it is
most likely that any complaints actually received were targeted at the show
content and not at its disruption to studies.
The chimerical nature of the alleged complaints is further
suggested by the absence of any in past years.
We know that there have been objections to Orgo Night raised over the
years from angry students who object to program content. Those students were heard from loudly and
clearly via op-ed articles in Spectator
and protests against Orgo Night posters.
Surely, a groundswell of additional objections to the Orgo Night show
based on disruption of study space would have surfaced after past
programs. The available published
material referencing Orgo Night, however, is devoid of any such quiet-study-based
complaints.
If, as seems likely, the alleged complaints don’t exist and
there is no data supporting the existence of any significant number of Quiet
Study Requestors, the administration should admit that the action against the Band
was taken prematurely and should be rescinded until such time as a reasoned
discussion can be conducted based on actual information. There are few events, operations, or food
choices in the cafeteria that have not generated a few complaints over the
years. But competent administrators who
are not hiding an ulterior motive do not take drastic action based on a few
isolated complaints. We are a
data-driven society and the university is nothing if not a data-driven
institution. Certainly, important
decisions concerning long-standing university traditions should not be made in
the absence of the relevant data.
-
Hamiltonius
H
No comments:
Post a Comment