A Letter to CPR: Your Distortion of Our Values Rings Hollow

A response to Columbia Political Review Editor-in-Chief Adam Kinder’s critique of Sundial’s anonymity policy

The Scholar’s Lion (Jonathan Perry/Columbia Sundial)

Yesterday, Adam Kinder CC ‘26, Editor-in-Chief of the Columbia Political Review (CPR), published a letter lambasting Sundial’s recent letter from the editor explaining why we do not accept anonymous submissions. Kinder’s response begins with a heartfelt account from a former CPR staff writer who left the University due to the Trump administration’s research funding cuts (which we note had nothing to do with whether or not that writer was able to publish anonymously). Kinder then extrapolates this narrative into a wider justification for CPR’s policy of accepting anonymous pieces for writers concerned about “the risks their speech posed to their visas, employment, and even physical safety,” invoking genuine fear to paint a misleading depiction of Sundial’s anonymity policy.

Kinder’s response boils down to an alarmingly reductive logic, which goes as follows: Sundial is anti-anonymity, and due to the current political climate, this policy systemically victimizes all students who are pro-Palestine, anti-Trump, and unapologetically leftist. This could not be further from the truth, and this conflation of what we actually stand for with an endorsement of political persecution is problematic.

Firstly, we want to elaborate on the principle behind our anti-anonymity policy. We believe that opinion journalism is, at its best, inextricably tied to a writer’s individual story. To do opinion journalism without identifying details is oxymoronic. Opinion writing is personal by definition. As a political journal that does not exclusively publish opinion writing, CPR may be able to remove the individual from the arguments published. But we, as a publication of criticism and commentary, cannot. If one wishes to write and express their opinions anonymously, there are many platforms available for them to do so. But that is not what Sundial is for. We require our writers to write as themselves.

Further, Kinder completely glazes over our contention that Sundial will be and has been attentive to the extenuating circumstances of our writers—or those who may submit to us—and their personal lives. Though we are not obliged to publicize instances of said extenuating circumstances, Kinder’s accusatory characterization leaves us no choice. So let us explain.

There have been times in the past when, because a writer articulates a clear and present danger to the full exposure of their ideas to the entire internet, we permit print-only publication. We think of print-only as a last resort that is not ideal but remains respectful of the writer’s concerns, while also ensuring that their opinion can be disseminated within these campus gates.

Alex, for example, wrote a personal reflection in the September 2025 issue of Sundial on his summer studying and volunteering in Kyrgyzstan. However, he had met someone during the summer who was actively stalking and making concerning threats to his family. Publishing online would have put Alex’s family in an unpredictable and distressing situation. Another example is from our October 2025 issue, when a Sundial writer responded to Nikos Mohammadi and Shoshana Aufzien’s piece on how Charlie Kirk was a champion for free speech. The writer argued that Mohammadi and Aufzien’s characterization is “nothing more than putting lipstick on a pig,” arguing that Kirk was interested in only “creat[ing] viral content and perpetuat[ing] right-wing ideology.” Given the right’s crackdown on speech that depicts Kirk as anything other than a sainted martyr, the writer was legitimately worried about their job security and safety outside of Columbia. As such, we permitted print-only publication.

In this edition, we also published an investigative and critical piece on the explicitly anti-CCP (and now derecognized) Falun Dafa at Columbia chapter. Both the writer, Angelina Xu CC ‘29, and her family feared harassment from Falun Dafa members, who are often stationed near or on campus promoting their ideology. After much deliberation, we all—Angelina, her family, and the Sundial editorial board—agreed that the piece could not be written or published without her voice. It was not just an investigation; it was unequivocally tied to her personal narrative.

We can accept that to Kinder, these experiences do not meet his threshold for having something “to lose by putting those thoughts to paper.” These pieces may not be “radical” enough by his standards. Nonetheless, we are proud of our writers for pushing themselves to publish pieces that they were uncomfortable with.

With regard to the concerns about pro-Palestinian activism being enabled only by the shield of anonymity, we counter that the most powerful testimonies of the inhumanity of Israel’s policies and the Trump administration’s anti-Palestinian bigotry come from figures and stories we all know well. Mohsen Mahdawi, and Mahmoud Khalil (both of whom our writers have written in support of in past editions) are powerful advocates because they speak from the heart and from their personal experiences.

As editors of a free speech publication, we fervently disagree with political persecution on the basis of speech. We sympathize with writers who feel that they cannot safely express their opinions, and we are not attempting to belittle their concerns. We do have exceptions in our anonymity policy for exceptional circumstances. The problem, however, is that there are drawbacks to both pro-anonymity and anti-anonymity submission policies. As Kinder alleges, anti-anonymity prevents writers from being able to write without fear of retribution. What Kinder doesn’t consider closely enough is that anonymity as a matter of policy has implications beyond the publication of any single piece.

We uphold bylined articles as a general matter of policy because we want to foster a publication culture that forces our writers to weigh their arguments carefully.

Are they, perhaps, contradicting a point they made in an earlier edition of Sundial? This was Senior Editor Nick Baum’s experience in his recent piece on the 2025-26 FIRE College Free Speech Rankings. In the past, he has criticized Columbia students for self-censorship. Acknowledging that the campus culture is different now, he responded to his former argument to contend that his mind had changed on the free speech crisis as merely a student-led problem. He could not take back his previous condemnation of students, and he had no choice but to grapple with his own writing.

We acknowledge that neither CPR’s anonymity policy nor ours is flawless. But in weighing the benefits and costs of both, we firmly stand in support of our publication’s aversion to anonymity.

Kinder challenges Sundial to grapple with ideas, both far left and right, that are sealed by the cover of anonymity. Here’s the issue: There are countless platforms where one can voice their demagoguery—but Sundial is not one of them. One can grapple with ideas without being compelled to platform them. Our priority is not just engaging with or discussing ideas, but supporting our writers so they “can stand behind what they write with the support of this publication.” To that end, we do not believe that it is conducive to our writers’ growth to have anonymity as a comfortable practice—that the editorial board endorses—to fall back on.

Considering that Kinder is eager to call for “engagement, not avoidance” when it comes to ideas that should be controversial on our campus, we look forward to the day he publishes a defense of such radically right-wing views—though we doubt he ever will. And we do not fault Kinder or CPR for that. The problem is that he faults us for not wanting to platform those views.

Unlike Kinder, we believe the brand of radical views in an anonymous piece matters. In his letter, Kinder wrote that “Calling a view ‘radical’ should not disqualify it from contributing to our discussion of the world’s problems and how we can fix them.” To this critique, we say, it is easy to forget that there are two kinds of radicalism. The first is the inflammatory, unproductive brand—the type that merely has the intention of forcing one’s opinions onto others, absent a desire for intellectual exchange. This is how we would describe the effect of the Harvard Salient’s editorial style. Kinder also claimed that “the job of editors [is] to get their facts straight.” We agree. That’s why we want to clarify that we did not claim the Salient’s pro-Nazi piece was published anonymously. Instead, we make a connection between their willingness to publish anonymously and a culture of polemical writing.

If one delves into the history of the Salient, which we did not include in our original letter for the sake of brevity, one will find that it was revived as an explicitly pro-anonymity publication. Ironically, the defense of anonymity by Salient is the same one offered by Kinder. In a written statement to the Harvard Crimson, Harvard’s legacy publication, Jacob Cremers, a spokesperson for the Salient, wrote that “The pseudonyms also allow readers to focus on the ideas communicated, rather than the writer behind them.”

The Crimson found the principle behind the Salient to be offensive and antithetical to their journalistic standards. In response, their editorial board reaffirmed its commitment to publishing bylines because they “believe it’s important that our community can hold us accountable for what we publish.” Sundial is proud to share this principle with the Crimson. We find it difficult to believe that Kinder knows more about the corrosive effect of the Salient’s pseudonyms on Harvard’s campus than the Crimson.

The second type of radicalism is the beneficial kind, the one that produces new and novel ideas that challenge society. We agree with Kinder on the importance of such ideas on our campus. But in our view, there is not much to disagree about in the single anonymous piece we could find currently published on CPR’s website. Thus, to condemn Sundial’s standards and then suggest that they are pushing the boundaries of thought through their pro-anonymity rebrand is utterly self-referential.

Kinder invokes the likes of the Communist Manifesto and Common Sense—which he notes were first published anonymously—to demonstrate how certain opinions ought to be published, even if deemed unacceptably “radical.” This example of Great Thinkers utilizing anonymous writing is a nice touch of erudition. But let’s be practical: It’s fair to assume that none of us at CPR and Sundial are producing revolutionary manifestos on the level of Karl Marx or Thomas Paine.

We understand where this value misalignment comes from. Kinder frames CPR as battling on the ideological front of this nation, while Sundial is merely invested in “Broadway and Amsterdam.” Yet as we emphasized in our letter, first and foremost, we are writing for and to the community that we have the privilege of sharing with each other. As a Columbia publication, people read Sundial because we write about Columbia, not because our status as Ivy League students somehow establishes heightened credibility of our opinions amongst outsiders. CPR may disagree with this mission and central focus, but we will not waver on the importance of this commitment.

Finally, to address the main critique Kinder presented against Sundial: that we do not contribute to real concerns over censorship from the Columbia and the Trump administrations. The fight against censorship is, in fact, an active goal of ours, and we appreciate constructive feedback on how to improve on this effort. On Wednesday, Alex spoke on a panel titled “The State of Free Speech at Columbia University.” An attendant posed a question about student safety and the flurry of new restrictions against student activism. This student highlighted concerns over new and controversial rules on flyering and administrative overreach. Alex, in agreement with the attendant, made the point that many students are not at all aware of these recent attacks on student freedom. In a crowd of nearly 50 attendants, Alex thanked them for such an eloquent point and invited them to write for Sundial to expand on this important argument.

In response, the attendant and their friend boisterously laughed. Even when Sundial seeks to broaden the voices, ideas, and ideologies represented in our pages, the voices we’d like to hear from the most are also the ones most prejudiced against our mission.

As for our editorial work, though our writers are free to write about non-Trump administration-related issues as CPR’s writers are, we actively seek out ways to keep this topic at the forefront of our pages. Littered in between light-hearted pieces on campus culture or Columbia’s history are critiques of the IHRA definition, the chilling of pro-Palestinian protests, and Office of Institutional Equity-mandated trainings.

Though we do not owe the campus community our forthcoming plans for pieces that are in the editorial stage, we plan to publish about the challenges the Bridge Columbia chapter faced from the Administrative bureaucracy to host a discussion on October 7, and a piece by Imaan critiquing the IHRA definition in the coming weeks. Given that Kinder has no issue engaging with the argument of pseudonymous writer “CORNELIA” in defense of gender segregation, we hope he can do the same with pieces his own classmates publish.

We thank Kinder for engaging with our ideas and challenging our beliefs. This is an intellectual endeavor that is at the heart of Sundial’s mission. However, we were disappointed that, as someone whom Alex considers a friend, Kinder did not reach out to us with any critiques before publishing the hit that we now find ourselves responding to.

We appreciate how eager Kinder is to keep up with Sundial’s endeavors. We are always enthusiastic about the opportunity to expand and respond to why Sundial takes on the unique flavor that it does.

We doubt we’ve convinced Kinder to change his publication’s editorial standards, but we respect CPR’s choices. At the very least, we hope they can respect ours too.

---

Mr. Nagin is a senior in the Dual BA program with Trinity College Dublin studying political science and Russian. He is the editor-in-chief of Sundial.

Ms. Chaudhry is a senior at Columbia College studying history. She is a deputy editor for Sundial.