Clayton, thank you for your excellent article. CODA's explanation of its betrayal of its founding principles was so egregious it could have been written by the Babylon Bee, as an absurd satirical example of organizational hypocrisy.
Thank you for this very enlightening, yet highly disturbing, piece. When CODA was founded, I was encouraged that it would serve as a bright ray of light overcoming the darkness of turmoil that permeated the Morningside campus in 2025. It gave me hope that there were members of the Columbia community who chose a different path than violent conflict and turmoil for the airing of complex social and political issues, members who had not hermetically sealed their minds against the infiltration of points of view that differed from their own. I hoped that the CODA mission would attract growing numbers of adherents, so that Columbia would once again become a bastion of reasoned and civil discourse and the free exchange of ideas. So it was distressing to read the statement by CODA's board concerning the (in my opinion) excellent and well-reasoned Sundial article by Nikos Mohammadi and Christina Ma. I can only hope that this unfortunate incident will not reverse progress that seems to have been made toward fulfilling CODA's goals.
Thank you for writing this Clay. Aum Desai must resign. CODA is clearly due for a Columbia Independent-style exodus and reformation (IYKYK).
100% agree
Clayton, thank you for your excellent article. CODA's explanation of its betrayal of its founding principles was so egregious it could have been written by the Babylon Bee, as an absurd satirical example of organizational hypocrisy.
Thank you Evan. I hope all is well! I completely agree. The statements they released read like satire. The irony is almost too much to take.
Thank you for this very enlightening, yet highly disturbing, piece. When CODA was founded, I was encouraged that it would serve as a bright ray of light overcoming the darkness of turmoil that permeated the Morningside campus in 2025. It gave me hope that there were members of the Columbia community who chose a different path than violent conflict and turmoil for the airing of complex social and political issues, members who had not hermetically sealed their minds against the infiltration of points of view that differed from their own. I hoped that the CODA mission would attract growing numbers of adherents, so that Columbia would once again become a bastion of reasoned and civil discourse and the free exchange of ideas. So it was distressing to read the statement by CODA's board concerning the (in my opinion) excellent and well-reasoned Sundial article by Nikos Mohammadi and Christina Ma. I can only hope that this unfortunate incident will not reverse progress that seems to have been made toward fulfilling CODA's goals.