<p>"So you agree that it would be ILLEGAL to say Barnard is part of Columbia in official legal documents ? "</p>
<p>If columbia university feels that something is happening that is contrary to their contractual agreement they should take all remedies. If they don’t that says something about what they think. Which is more relevant than what I think.</p>
<p>Again, nobody is making them sign the diplomas.</p>
<p>mony he tricked you with the question and revised his earlier statements.</p>
<p>he has now made clear that he refers to legal documents, of which a diploma is not a legal document. but yeah let’s call this argument over, jomjom wants to play semantics, crooked/concoll and others want to argue it is independent and somehow the “separate, but equal” approach. personally i think the later, while not being untrue, spurs the social justice side of me because I know how dangerous and polemical asking underrepresented and historically disempowered groups to be happy with who they are. it is extraordinarily demeaning. though not on topic, there was a good article on CNN that talks about race and why two groups can be talking about the same thing and not really understand - [Commentary:</a> ‘Post-racial’ America isn’t here yet - CNN.com](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/28/pitts.black.america/index.html]Commentary:”>http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/28/pitts.black.america/index.html). As someone partial to the Barnard causext I am on here at least trying to establish to an extent why the more nuanced answer as Concoll called it is very important to discuss and understand. Ultimately I think the dissonance between groups suggests that there is no clear cut “Legal” “Illegal” and worse yet as we are not even involved actors who have a true stake in the legal interpretation it is pretty foolish of us to argue the legality or illegality of Barnard College of Columbia University. </p>
<p>I don’t think this forum or most should have a definitive answer - we should not some how all agree that yes BC students should not use Columbia as a name. I think it is silly for us to keep harping as clearly there are stark differences. But to those who insist on the illegality or the misrepresentation or wrongness of it - I hope at the very least you have thought (if for a brief moment) why would someone want to use the CU name, what are the many different reasons, and could any of them be legitimate (leaving the legal question aside) - this was in fact the initial spirit of the OP. The Barnard/Columbia divide is sticky and troublesome. It involves people that have unequal access to power and influence, to resources and opportunities, and treating all individuals in this conversation equally is beyond the pale. Columbia students ought to approach this board with a bit more sensitivity to the subject of Barnard - even more so than expressed here. The young women there have a lot to offer Columbia and I hope that the slighting of Barnard - however intentional, institutionalized or latent - becomes less and less. But whether or not you realize it, many of you on this board have in trying to “praise Barnard” in fact demeaned it. If this doesn’t make sense yet, I know it is complicated, well, mull it over, hopefully the nuance of it sinks in…to an extent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>you did not answer my question… but it looks like you are now accepting the fact that Barnard is at least legally separate and financially independent from Columbia U</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>According to Barnard web site, Barnard/Columbia relationship is crystal clear. </p>
<p>“Barnard is legally separate and financially independent from Columbia U”</p>
<p>I don’t know about social or functional relationship between two school.</p>
<p>ok I don’t care about this any more, it’s no longer an issue for my family. </p>
<p>But all I’m saying is, given actual functional situation on the ground, and the formal relation as affiliate, not unrelated college, and not really, truly actually an independent college, in reality,whatever has been technically set up there to make it appear nominally independent, and the fact that the schools are in substance highy integrated,</p>
<p>there are going to be people who, after receiving a diploma that says what’s written in post #81, believe what it says, and think that they are entitled by virtue of same, given the context, to write Columbia U.</p>
<p>Maybe they are wrong. Maybe they are not wrong. But because it says that, there will be people who will think it’s ok and keep doing it. Perhaps deludedly so, perhaps not. But the only way to avoid having some people thinking it’s ok to do it, if they are deluded and confused by what they are given per post # 81, </p>
<p>is to stop giving it to them.</p>
<p>Then there will be no longer be any confusion on the point and it will immediately stop.</p>
<p>That’s mostly what I am saying. Not so much whether they are wrong to think it,or right. Justified or not. If they are given something that says what that says, there will continue to be people, rightly or wrongly, that believe it’s ok to say it, and then do so.</p>
<p>That will only stop if they stop getting it.
Whether they are misled, or correct.</p>
<p>Over and out. Thank goodness we no longer need to care about this.</p>
<p>Why can’t people accept the following clear sentence ?
</p>
<p>Since the diploma is not an legal nor financial document, Barnard is still legally separate and financially independent from Columbia U</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Barnard students are given something (diploma) that says , under legal agreement, “” Barnard is legally and financially part of Columbia. “”</p>
<p>From what I’ve gathered on this thread- it says the exact opposite.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>correction ::
“” Barnard students are given something (diploma) that says , under legal agreement, “” Barnard is legally separate and financially independent from Columbia . “” “”</p>
<p>copied wrong sentence</p>
<p>You are mistaken: there is no relationship between Wellesley and Harvard. The relationship is between Wellesley and MIT.</p>
<p>I have an interesting question: Why do y’all care so much if a Barnard student says they got a degree from CU?</p>
<p>Technically, it is true, and it’s no skin off of your back if they do. They’re not going to be able to hide the fact that they went to Barnard and most people (employers especially) are aware of the nature of Barnard’s affiliation with Columbia.</p>
<p>Why do you care? They’re not “tarnishing” your name; Barnard students are very high caliber students anyway.</p>
<p>And EngProfMom, Ruth Simmons was never president of Spelman College. We have had 9 presidents and she was not one of them. She was, instead, the provost of Spelman at one time, and we are very proud that she is now president of Brown :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wellesley & MIT have cross-registration relationship. Wellesley students can take MIT courses, receive same MIT student card, use MIT library, participate MIT activity, eat MIT cafeteria, etc… Harvard Wellesely also have similar relationship</p>
<p>But they don’t receive a degree from either institution…right? Just Wellesley, that’s the difference.
But I agree, Barnard is an awesome school and people shouldn’t hide the fact that they went to Barnard College, an official college of Columbia University (or in partnership if you prefer to play semantics)</p>
<p>
Barnard is legally separate and financially independent from Columbia. We don’t want Barnard students get involved with illegal activity.</p>
<p>
Yes technically. But not legally nor financially. Technically Columbia College male student in Dancing department, taking lots of courses at Barnard, participating in Barnard activity, can claim that he is Barnard College, CU graduate, ‘’‘‘technically’’‘’. </p>
<p>
yes people will find out soon. and the people will wonder why she is hiding the word ‘Barnard’
Usually people hide something that they are not proud of. eg. criminal record. </p>
<p>
Yes Barnard students are extremely high caliber students. So why do they hide the name ‘Barnard’ ? after spending 4 years with 50K/year ?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wellesely recieve MIT student card which says MIT student. So wellesley is ““technically”” same as MIT. take same courses as MIT uses MIT campus eat MIT food… gets MIT e-mail accounts gets MIT computer accounts etc…<br>
However, wellesely is stilly legally separate and financially independent from MIT.</p>
<p>But socially functionallly technically same as MIT</p>
<p>Barnard students don’t receive degree from Columbia legally and financially…</p>
<p>facebook doesn’t have a barnard college network, but it has columbia.</p>
<p>Then why does the President of Columbia sign their degrees. And why does a degree from Barnard blatantly state Columbia. Legally and financially refers to administration of the institutions, which yes are separate.</p>
<p>Are you honestly trying to argue that Barnard students do not receive Columbia degrees?</p>
<p>If so, you are very ignorant and are using the same statement in every post to make yourself feel like you have a life. Please, do something with your life.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah facebook doesn’t list all schools.</p>
<p>
Because, both Barnard-Columbia agreed that Barnard stays legally separate and financially independent from Columbia even though Barnard diploma is signed by Columbia and Barnard president( instead of Barnard Dean). Yes two president from two separate school sign it to make sure that Barnard is legally separate from Columbia.</p>
<p>and diploma is not an legal nor financial document. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not arguing anything. I am just repeating what Columbia-Barnard legal agreements says…</p>
<p>Columbia U says ’ Columbia has only 3 undergraduate school’
Columbia U says Barnard is not part of Columbia U.
Barnard claims Barnard is part of Columbia U. What do you think the verdit should be ? you decide</p>
<p>Columbia U also says that Barnard students receive COLUMBIA DEGREES.</p>