Letters to the Editor

Editorial Finds the Problem of Alumni Giving but Loses the Causes

To the Editor:

The editorial “Making Your Money Matter” (Oct. 1) was a good indicator of why Columbia has such a low giving rate. Columbians past and present have among their distinguishing characteristics a tendency to view the institution as merely the sum of its people and its history of people, and not as having an independent existence that is greater than the sum of its parts.

The plea was for alumni to view the institution as greater than the decisions with which the alumni disagree. Such a plea is right and proper, but its phrasing came from the wrong perspective; it treated the alumni as instrumentalities for the indulgence of the whims of current students and faculty. The problem with the invitation to Ahmadinejad was not, for its opponents, an issue of free speech—it was an issue of affiliating the institution with Ahmadinejad’s message. President Bollinger may have done an excellent job of communicating to an English-speaking audience that there is no such affiliation, but many critics are more concerned with the associations that a foreign audience may form about Columbia.

Columbia is a great institution that, in its history, has managed to prove hundreds of times over that it can operate as more than a sum of its parts. Through projects on both sides of the political spectrum (bombs and protests) and through medical and technological breakthroughs, through political leadership and through careful nurturing of its fantastic literary and artistic assets, Columbia has surged forward—even in the face of the swaying fortunes of New York, its endowment, and American academia.

Alumni giving will not go up while students, faculty, and administrators do not see the institution as having a compelling presence beyond the agenda of its current, immediate occupants. Charity springs from humility, and nothing breeds humility so well as humility. To inculcate in current students an ethic of giving and to inspire the continued support of extant alumni even in the face of unpopular decisions, the faculty and administration must be more humble, not in their aspirations, but in their use of the University to pursue those aspirations.

Andy Lebwohl, CC ’04, Law ’07
Oct. 1, 2007

Columbia Must Listen to Student Concerns and Use Cage-Free Eggs

To the Editor:

As a Columbia graduate, I’m hopeful that my alma mater might join the ranks of more than 160 universities across the country with cage-free egg policies (“Students Petition Dining Services for Cage-Free Eggs,” Oct. 3).

People who care about animals are right to oppose the confinement of egg-laying hens in restrictive battery cages, where they can hardly move for their entire lives. Columbia should listen to the concerns of its students and alumni and do the right thing: switch from abusive battery cage eggs to cage-free eggs.

Columbia students can learn more at humanesociety.org.

Bowen Cho, GS ’07
Oct. 3, 2007

Segal’s Criticisms Are Unfounded as He Is No Archaeologist

To the Editor:

I have not read Nadia Abu El-Haj’s book Facts on the Ground and have no opinion on whether or not she should be tenured. But, based on reports of Professor Alan Segal’s lecture on the topic (sponsored by Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, one of the most misleadingly-titled groups in existence) and his essay in Spectator (“Some Professional Observations on the Controversy About Abu El-Haj,” Sept. 21), the religion professor is probably the last person who should be weighing in on this issue. Segal is not an archaeologist.

It is rich of him to complain that Abu El-Haj’s arguments rely on “an American writer” who is “neither an archaeologist nor an Israeli,” since this is an accurate description of Segal himself. What’s more, in his attempt to take down his younger colleague, Segal has also reportedly attacked Professor Israel Finkelstein, one of Israel’s most respected archaeologists. This is sheer chutzpah. Finkelstein, unlike Segal, has devoted his career to careful study of biblical archaeology, and even the so-called “maximalists”, who passionately dispute some of his conclusions, have acknowledged his importance to the field.

Segal’s characterization of Finkelstein as an assistant professor who in the 1980s proposed a theory simply to make a name for himself—if indeed those were his words—is thus pure slander. If Segal has actually read Finkelstein’s work, he seems to have thoroughly misunderstood it; nobody who knows anything about the field could wittingly classify Finkelstein as a minimalist. I can sympathize with Segal’s wish to defend cherished national myths from pesky revisionist scholars. But I am afraid that here he is in over his head.

Moshik Tempkin, GSAS
Sept. 21, 2007