Barnard College Students Told to Remove Door Decorations so as Not to Isolate Others
“We encourage debate and discussion and the free exchange of ideas, while upholding our commitment to treating one another with respect, consideration and kindness”
Why must administrators micro-manage student life in this way? We wouldn’t want to offend anyone? Really?
The College Fix reports:
Barnard College students must remove door decorations – to not ‘isolate those with different views’
Students at Barnard College have until February 28 to remove all dorm door decorations, or else school officials will do it for them.
The reason: Barnard doesn’t want students to “isolate those who have different views and beliefs.”
The policy pertains to “dry-erase boards, decorations, or messaging.”
The Columbia Spectator reports that in a February 23 email, Dean Leslie Grinage wrote that although door ornamentations can “serve as a means of helpful communication amongst peers,” sometimes they have “unintended” effects.
“We encourage debate and discussion and the free exchange of ideas, while upholding our commitment to treating one another with respect, consideration and kindness,” Grinage (pictured) wrote.
“We know that you have been hearing often lately about our community rules and policiess. And we know it may feel like a lot. The goal is to be as clear as possible about the guardrails, and, meeting the current moment, do what we can to support and foster the respect, empathy and kindness that must guide all of our behavior on campus.”
Students can request an exemption for “religious or other reasons” by contacting Barnard’s Residential Life and Housing.
Some on social media took the decoration ban as anti-Palestinian. NYU professor Jacob Remes said the policy is “deeply messed up” as Barnard is “afraid that someone might express solidarity with Palestinians.”
Another said it was “totally insane and ridiculous” and claimed Barnard is fearful of “the 1% of rich donors removing their donations.”
Anthony Zenkus, an “anti-capitalist, anti-fascist, anti-war [and] anti-violence” professor at Columbia, tweeted that the new policy was “horrible.”
On the other hand, despite the noted religious exemption, others speculated the policy was a move to ban mezuzahs, an ornament which includes verses from the Torah that many Jews put up in doorways to their residences:
Is this meant to force Jews to remove mezuzos? Idk how admissions have changed in recent years, but when I was growing up, a big percentage of Barnard girls were Jewish
— 🇺🇦🇮🇱 Steven Walk (@realStevenWalk) February 25, 2024
SOL, mezuzahs. Great job. 🙄
— Tom Sabanick (@sabagnic) February 24, 2024
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Also, ostentatious displays of fashion “isolate whose who cannot participate equally” due to economic circumstances.
Mao Jackets for everyone from here on out.
Mao jackets, trousers, shoes, all in the same shade of gray. No decorations or variations allowed.
Some folks need offending. Good and hard.
“To anyone I have not yet offended, please be patient. I will get to you shortly.”
let the fascists id themselves
they are in fact currently in charge
so they are alll for it
great
let the tide turn against them
lets go!!!!!!
And don’t anyone dare leave a message on a door via Post-it note paper or even old fashioned paper and tape.
I wonder how long it is before this gets challenged on violation of First Amendment grounds.
Even if it were a government institution, which it’s not, this would not violate the first amendment. On the contrary, banning only pro-Hamas items would violate it, in a government institution, but banning all items does not. Indeed, a government institution could ban only political items and allow anything non-political; it’s a limited public forum, so policy does not need to be content-neutral, but only viewpoint-neutral. As a private college, Barnard doesn’t even need to be that.
If you’re on living on campus you must follow the campus rules. Even off campus apartment building, landlord can regulate the appearance of doors and windows. If you fly nazi flag from apartment window, the landlord can order it removed. Its established law. Tenants only have right to “decorate” interior spaces. Banard might sound petty, but its property owners decision.
If this is a Federally Funded University then I would tell them to go pound sand and just add a copy of the first amendment to my door with a notation that there is no right to not being offended.
Such a policy may very well violate First Amendment protections
No, it doesn’t, and wouldn’t even if it were a government institution.
How much Federal aid doies Columbia get? Does not that qualify as state enforced restriction of freedom of speech?
Not according to the constitution.
Nothing in the first amendment entitles you to attach things to your dorm door, even in a government institution.
The perpetually offended are so self-centered that whatever rules are put in place are always to oppose their sense of entitlement.
I am reminded of conversations with relatives or childhood peers from deep blue political places. When they bring up politics, and find out that I do not agree with them, they stop the conversation.
I have no problem with political disagreements, but they do. (Ironically, while they hold their deep blue political views while living in deep blue political places, I also live in a deep blue political place.)
Speaking of political views plastered on university doors, I am reminded of a tale from the Vietnam War era, when universities were more tolerant of political dissent. One professor placed an anti-Vietnam War poster on his door. Two doors down, a professor put an American flag (or a poster?) on his door. The professor of the door in the middle put up a Demilitarized Zone sign on his door.
Incidentally, all three of the professors had served in the Armed Forces- two in WW2.
I don’t know how Barnard and Columbia compared, but IIRC, there was a fair amount of harassment of Jewish students at Columbia after October 7.
Mezuzos are not ornaments or decoration, so the edict should be presumed not to apply to them in the first place. But that would depend on the exact wording, which is not quoted. So the explicit language about religious exemptions is encouraging.
Also, missing from this story is the fact that this follows soon after Barnard initiated disciplinary action against a student who hung a “Palestinian” banner from a dorm window. And it’s the Hamas supporters who are complaining loudly. So it does seem as if it’s intended to crack down on them, and to protect Jewish students who don’t feel free to respond to such banners by putting up, e.g. Israeli flags on their doors, because they know they would be vandalized.
Don;t be shocked if Columbia and Barnard try to restrict free exercise of religiion such as mezuzahs on doors and building a sukkah, etc
I actually would be shocked if that were to happen. I’m confident it won’t.
Not that it would be unconstitutional, since it’s a private institution, but it’s just not the sort of thing they would do, even in this woke era. Or especially in this woke era, when the antisemites are trying so hard to pretend that they’re only “anti-zionist”, and that there’s daylight to be discovered between that and antisemitism.