Our occupations

After a summer of upheaval in the Arab world and Europe, the populist outcry has reached the United States. Occupy Wall Street has gained support in cities across the country, becoming a topic of both casual conversation and activism across campus. A recent petition circulated among the faculty rightly condemns “the intimate relationship between corporate power and government at all levels, which has made genuine change impossible.” But our intellectualist urges are not a sufficient reason to subscribe to a populist movement, however valid, without careful examination. If we seek to engage with this exciting movement from a realistic outlook, we should not ignore another “intimate relationship” that Wall Street enjoys.

Beyond the populist angst, the status quo is largely favorable to Columbia, a school that enjoys a strong relationship with the institutions of Wall Street. As an elite University, one that has for generations matriculated what is effectively the “ruling class” of our democracy, Columbia’s fortunes are largely tied to those of Wall Street. Our alumni populate boardrooms and trading floors, and our professors guide innovations in management and strategy. As students, we vied to gain acceptance to Columbia so that we might enjoy a world-class education, with the expectation that our successful passage will aid in securing a flourishing, remunerative life. The force that enables our world-class education is funding. It is a costly endeavor to gather the best professors in worthy facilities. A large portion of the funding necessary to keep our school thriving comes from institutional donors, specifically institutions on Wall Street. A quick review of the Columbia College Annual Fund reveals a donor list featuring Deutsche Bank, The Goldman Sachs Foundation, HSBC Bank, Macquarie Group Foundation, and the accountancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, among others. This is not to say we are beholden to these companies, nor are we prohibited from voicing deserved outrage over the systematic failures that crippled the global economy. But when we talk about “Wall Street,” we must recognize that we are, to a great extent, a part of the system we criticize.

The implications are threefold. First, we ought not engage with the Occupy Wall Street protest with as much ideological freedom as many of the protesters. As a movement with a wide range of constituent groups and political demands, only some of the advocacy coming out of Occupy Wall Street is consistent with the continued success of a school like Columbia. At the end of the day, many of us are or will be part of that “1 percent” that is currently so maligned. And if not, the patronage of that 1 percent has benefited us in enabling us to pursue innumerable opportunities.

For all of us, the question is not so much whether or not the 1 percent ought to exist, but how it ought to use its relative might in the name of stewardship. Secondly, it follows that we should engage with Occupy Wall Street in a way that takes advantage of our roles as members of an elite institution. If we sympathize with the message and understand the motivations, then we should act in accordance with a social duty and work toward reform. While for some this may entail civil disobedience of the mild sort, for a Columbia student it means something a bit more pragmatic. By dint of the fact that many of us will one day occupy positions of leadership in companies and organizations that are either members of the Wall Street “cabal” or close associates, we will be empowered to ameliorate the system from the inside. This course of action may make many of those currently protesting resent us for our ambitions, but if we are sure of our intentions and fortitude we should not be apologetic. Trying to impress systematic reform from without is a tiresome and largely fruitless process. But a populist movement can have powerful and lasting effects when its advocacy becomes the basis for action within the halls of power. This is our prerogative. Finally, the natural conclusion is that Columbia students have a dual obligation. We are obligated to preserve both the institutions of Wall Street and their relationships with the University, for this is in our self-interest as individuals and as members of our particular community. But we also have an obligation to remain vigilant against abuses of power from within the tightly knit networks of elite actors in society. For us, the notion of “occupying” Wall Street is strikingly literal.

Esfandyar Batmanghelidj is a Columbia College sophomore. He is a member of the rugby team. Institution Rules runs alternate Thursdays.