<p>The following is an opinion piece published in the Columbia Spectator:</p>
<p>Strong Barnard Women
Danielle Wolfe
Posted: 1/31/07</p>
<p>On Jan. 22, Columbia College first-year Melissa Diaz wrote an editorial in which she proposed that Columbia reevaluate its relationship with Barnard and dictate whether the institutions should merge or separate. As Barnard students, we were alarmed by her reductive treatment of a very complex issue. Neither institution has ever claimed that the relationship is a simple one. An understanding of the unique and complex affiliation between Barnard and Columbia requires a mature and open mind. We intend to amend the superficial and assumptive approach Diaz took in suggesting a change in the relationship.</p>
<p>By only asking whether or not Columbia would benefit from “closing the confusing gap,” her question not only denies Barnard’s autonomy in the decision-making process but also assumes a parasitic relationship from which host Columbia is only too willing to escape.</p>
<p>Barnard does receive access to a world-class library and considerably more classes than it would be able to offer its students independently. Barnard students also utilize spaces like Lerner and Dodge Fitness Center, which supplement the services offered to students on our campus. However, Barnard is far from a freeloading institution. Our administration pays for us to use the services Columbia provides. Columbia also benefits from the relationship in ways beyond the monetary. Without Barnard, Columbia students would not have access to the acclaimed architecture, dance, education, theater, and urban studies departments that only exist west of Broadway. Columbia students also benefit from being able to use Barnard’s space. Essentially, Columbia gets to expand its academic, athletic, and alumni base without expanding its campus, and it gets paid to do it. That’s a pretty sweet deal.</p>
<p>Although these facts might lead one to argue for a merger, that doesn’t take into account the fact that Barnard has a very clear idea of its mission, and it would not be willing to abandon those values in order to merge with the University. While “partnership with a major research university” is included in Barnard’s mission statement, the emphasis is clearly on its desire “to provide the highest quality liberal arts education to promising and high-achieving young women.”</p>
<p>Barnard’s administrators are well-aware of the benefits a single-sex education can provide students. Graduates of all-women’s colleges report greater satisfaction than their coed counterparts with their college experience in almost all measures. Many Barnard students will attest to the fact that being in an atmosphere focused on women allows for greater self-expression. With a long commitment to women’s equality in mind, Barnard provides an amazing array of health programs, student organizations, and career advising, all specifically targeted to women’s needs. Barnard also organizes a variety of events, lectures, and panel discussions devoted to raising awareness about women’s issues today.</p>
<p>The importance of a women’s education to female empowerment is clear from the fact that women who graduated from single-sex institutions hold higher positions and are happier in their careers. Such women constitute more than 20 percent of congresswomen, and 30 percent of a Business Week list of rising women stars in corporate America.</p>
<p>If Barnard were to become just another one of Columbia’s undergraduate schools, we would risk losing the amazing sense of community the college provides us. Barnard is a smaller, closer-knit community that allows administrators, faculty, and advisers to give students more personal attention. The widespread sense of anonymity experienced by so many Columbia students is absent at Barnard. Barnard is solely an undergraduate institution, and students here feel that the focus falls on their needs alone, whereas the attention of Columbia administrators and faculty tends to lie more with graduate curriculum and research. Barnard students don’t feel that they are just here to be potential donors, a suspicion of many Columbia students.</p>
<p>The Barnard identity is palpable and not something students are willing to part with. For these reasons, Barnard will not allow itself to be swallowed up by the University. To claim that Harvard and Brown are stronger institutions because of their respective mergers with Radcliffe and Pembroke is valid, but where did that leave their sister schools? Extinction is not an option for Barnard. And it is safe to say that Columbia administrators have no intention of merging with Barnard now. </p>
<p>The relationship as it exists now is beneficial for both schools and has been since its inception in 1982. When Columbia approached Barnard about merging in the 1970s, it was out of dire necessity-the number of Columbia’s applicants was far below the other Ivies, and Columbia administrators expected the applicant pool to double upon going co-ed. When Barnard refused to relinquish autonomy, Columbia had no choice but to accept women on its own. Though a merger would have been logical for Columbia in 1982, it was never logical and will never be logical for Barnard. Interestingly enough, Columbia did not choose to sever ties with Barnard once it began admitting women. Clearly, administrators saw merit in keeping the relationship alive. According to a 1982 Time Magazine article, when the current relationship between Barnard and Columbia was agreed upon, the new arrangement was flouted as the “best of all possible non-unions.” When asked how he felt about “integration without assimilation,” then-president of Columbia Michael Sovern positively replied, “I don’t see any snakes in this Eden.” </p>
<p>To this day, the relationship between the schools remains snake-less. Columbia saves money by maintaining the affiliation, and it’s safe to say that its administrators would not give up the access to space and classes simply to make the relationship with Barnard less confusing for some students. Columbia has more important things to worry about, like its new policy on financial aid for low-income families. Ultimately, there’s no reason for Columbia to break the affiliation except in response to the wounded elitism of a loud minority of Columbia students.</p>
<p>For years, Barnard students have been plagued by the hostility of this minority. It may frustrate some people that Barnard students have all the advantages of a small, women’s college along with the resources that a large, research institution provides, but maybe those students should further analyze their frustration and ask themselves why they really care. Maybe some of them wish they had access to the type of college experience that Barnard students do, or maybe they see in Barnard a perfect target by which to bolster their pride. In this sense, the strategy of “merge or bust” seems to be a transparent and defensive guarding of the Columbia degree. Barnard students do have the words “Columbia University” on their diplomas, but this fact certainly does not dilute the value of a Columbia degree. The worth of the Columbia degree should be based on the recipient’s merit, not just the words on our diploma.</p>
<p>When asked for her opinion on Diaz’s op-ed, Dean of Barnard College Dorothy Denburg stated: “I am confident that the author of this article will grow in wisdom and maturity, and by the time she is an upperclasswoman, she will appreciate the value of the women’s college across the street. And I hope for her sake that she doesn’t end up like other Columbia College students who have told me they wished they had gone to Barnard.” With that, we’d like to say to Miss Diaz: Keep your “luck”-we’re not going to need it.</p>