<p>Do you think that televising the inauguration of Barack Obama on our campus is a partisan issue?</p>
<p>Hard to say. You can make the argument that it is, because Columbia (to my knowledge) didn’t televise George W. Bush’s inaugurations but it’s not particularly strong.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Argument that Obama is televised because he’s a Columbia College graduate, which Bush is not. Additionally, this is the first time an undergraduate has been elected to the Presidency, so it’s not a matter of political affiliation but Columbia affiliation</p></li>
<li><p>In the past, Columbia might not have had the technology to do such events. I’m not sure how strong this argument is since I don’t exactly know the technological capabilities that Columbia has had for the past 10 years in terms of large televisions. </p></li>
<li><p>Columbia has hosted both Presidential candidates at the Service Nation forum which is hasn’t done in the past and so has had a greater presence in this election than before. So, we’re televising the inauguration out of a desire for a kind of electoral catharsis. Again, I personally don’t think that this argument is particularly strong but it’s possible.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>It is because:
- Columbia has a much more liberal student body and those in leadership positions on campus are more likely to have been for obama than mccain. This argument isn’t very strong either because if we’re doing this simply on the basis of party affiliation, then why were the Clinton inaugurations untelevised? Again, you could explain that by saying Columbia didn’t have the technology back then. </p>
<p>That’s all I can think of. Personally, I think the Columbia affiliation is the strongest explanation, esp. since the University leaders have included so much rhetoric in their speeches to emphasize this affiliation.</p>
<p>Barack Obama was prominently mentioned in the Admissions tour of Columbia I took last summer. If Columbia was already publicly celebrating this alum’s achievements when he was merely nominated, they should be downright giddy on the occasion of his inauguration.</p>
<p>yes i wonder how many more applications will come in this year cuz of him… anyone think itll double?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ha, it’s a shame he doesn’t mention us that prominently.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is totally wrong. Tons of people with no chance apply to Columbia (or HYP) because they’re “good names” irrespective of how many presidents those schools have had. A dude in the white house won’t change that. Is everyone gonna apply to UDel or whatever crappy school Biden attended because the VP went there? No.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Personally, I think it’s partisanship on the part of the senior administration – using the Columbia affiliation as a convenient justification.</p>
<p>“Personally, I think it’s partisanship on the part of the senior administration – using the Columbia affiliation as a convenient justification.”</p>
<p>Columbia affiliation is a massive enough reason, I’m pretty sure if a republican columbia alum was elected they would whole heartedly televise his inauguration. also C02, it’s the inauguration of the president (no democratic, republican anymore), he’s now in charge of the country not just his original party. Bush was inaugurated 8 years ago, the technology wasn’t nearly as cheap or convenient back then. I can even see future (non-columbia-affiliated) presidents from the republican party having their inauguration speeches televised at Columbia. But the fact that he is a columbia alum is huge enough reason.</p>
<p>
They hosted John Edwards in 2004. I attended that event. This may shock you, but… it was interrupted by liberal-extremist protesters.</p>
<p>look, this need not be so complicated or nefarious.</p>
<p>The administration is responding to demand. There is student demand to publicly show the inauguration, so that’s what they are doing. If John McCain had won, they might have shown it, they might not, but it wouldn’t have made as many students happy so it would’ve been less likely. I don’t see how addressing the desires of their students is a bad thing. So the students lean Democratic. So the hell what?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hahahahaha.</p>
<p>“This is totally wrong. Tons of people with no chance apply to Columbia (or HYP) because they’re “good names” irrespective of how many presidents those schools have had. A dude in the white house won’t change that. Is everyone gonna apply to UDel or whatever crappy school Biden attended because the VP went there? No.”</p>
<p>um… what? that argument is about as lame as Biden who is the epitome of DC- old white farts. Obama has revolutionized the game as we know it. Of course Biden’s alma mater wont receive more apps just as I wouldnt expect Yale to receive more cuz of W- in fact theyve probably experienced some resentment/ decline in apps in the fact they let him in (wouldnt be surprised). But as I said Obama has changed the game and he sort of puts a cool image on politics now if not a cooler face on CU- he had facebook for gods sake. I would argue that there will be at least a 15% increase- not saying that the applicants are worthy- hell, half the people who voted in this election probably werent worthy of a voice but he got people out there to the booths just as he’ll attract more to apply</p>
<p>also what is this whole “technology factor” about? 8 years ago, we couldnt televise an event in the quad? really? you act like large monitors and cable were just invented. jumbotrons have been around since the early 80s and I myself owned a 50 inch NEC plasma back in 01… yes it was expensive. youre saying that CU didnt have the means 8 years ago? uh…</p>
<p>“I would argue that there will be at least a 15% increase- not saying that the applicants are worthy”</p>
<p>this is impossible to justify, a 15% increase is nothing extra-ordinary, almost standard, and even if applicants rise by more than that, there’s no way to justify that obama caused any of it.</p>
<p>“hell, half the people who voted in this election probably werent worthy of a voice but he got people out there to the booths just as he’ll attract more to apply”</p>
<p>except obama never told anyone: “vote for me, and apply to columbia”. To the contrary, he never talked about columbia, so we weren’t given much publicity.</p>
<p>“CU didnt have the means 8 years ago? uh…”</p>
<p>it’s deciding whether it’s worth the money, columbia has the means to undertakes hundreds of projects that they don’t pursue. If the cost of a big screen and the wiring has halved in 8 years, then the benefit is now twice as large relative to the cost as it was before.</p>
<p>a 15% increase in applications is actually quite significant, not “standard” by any means. The population is growing at around 3%, IIRC.</p>
<p>The real question in my mind is whether a very good applicant who gets admitted both to Columbia and to peer schools would now be more likely to choose Columbia. I hope so.</p>
<p>it would not be impossible to justify. you have the first black prez come from a renowned U that has always fallen in the middle of the ivies. he will have a major influence on those who’s first choice might have otherwise been HYP. his election grants a revival and a subliminal endorsement to CU- of course he didnt make any public endorsement but the effects will be the same. people will say hmmm, i didnt really know about CU before so maybe ill look into it more… </p>
<p>if obama/ any other CU alum had been elected 8 yrs ago they wouldve still put up some sort of a monitor. what, are they gonna say in another 8 yrs “o wow back in 09 they couldnt afford to put up the 300 foot megascreen that we now have”?? its all relative, technology gets more advanced, doesnt necessarily make it “cheaper”</p>
<p>first of all, technology has been coming down in cost by roughly a factor of 2 every 18 months. Go look up Moore’s Law (and I realize that’s not the exact quote, but it’s equally true in effect).</p>
<p>Secondly,
Columbia, until the 1960s and arguably until the 1980s, was easily the equal of HYP. Recall that the Ivy League started life as the “IV” league, i.e. the roman numeral for 4. Those four schools were Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, and Yale. They obviously expanded by a factor of 2 earlier last century, but those were the original peers.</p>
<p>CU fell on hard financial times in the 80s through mismanagement by Prez Kirk, had to sell off a lot of its money-making assets, and didn’t keep its brand quite as strong. But Columbia is by no means historically handicapped. There have been lots of schools at the top of university lists over the years, certainly among the premier tier, and that list will shift over time. “HYP” is by no means a historical inevitability. Hell, Princeton was somewhat of a backwater until Woodrow Wilson came out of there, and even for a while afterwards.</p>
<p>I agree with C2002. The administration is in sheer ecstasy over Barack Obama. The real question with regard to our prestige is, what if he ****s it all up?</p>
<p>“what if he ****s it all up?”</p>
<p>we’ll discuss this if it actually happens.</p>
<p>if he ****s it up I guess the public will have to blame the core at columbia- and CU will be crucified by the same ignorant people who claimed obama never went to CU in the first place… haha</p>
<p>Alums were invited as well but need to rsvp. The invitation includes this copy:</p>
<p>Come Celebrate Obama’s Inauguration
with the Columbia Community </p>
<p>So you can’t make it to D.C.?</p>
<p>Join Columbia’s President Lee C. Bollinger,
students, and alumni for a live JumboTron
screening of the historic presidential
inauguration of Barack Obama '83CC.</p>
<p>Hot chocolate and warm cider will be served—
and partisanship put aside—as we watch
the first African American and Columbia
graduate become president of the United States.</p>
<p>I just love the fact that they call it a JumboTron.</p>