-- By DylanRowling - 20 Feb 2025; Revised May 21 2025

“So the people shouted, and the priests blew the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, that the people shouted with a great shout, and the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city.” — Joshua 6:20 (ASV)

Operation Open Up: Reclaiming Freedom of Movement at Morningside

For over a year, Columbia University’s Morningside Campus has remained in an artificial state of lockdown. College Walk, once a public artery connecting Broadway and Amsterdam, now stands behind metal barricades and security tents. Hired guards demand identification at the gates. The University’s public-facing spaces, designed to symbolize openness and inquiry, are walled off from the very city they once embraced.

This is not merely a logistical inconvenience. It is a violation of a fundamental civil liberty: the right to free movement in public spaces. The American legal tradition, from the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV onward, has protected the basic freedom of citizens to move and assemble without arbitrary barriers. Columbia, by its own public mission and private statutes, was never meant to be a fortress. Its closure is not just an overcorrection to protest; it is a breach of trust with the University’s community and the public it purports to serve.

The closure reflects a deeper retreat from principle. Carved into the stone of Low Memorial Library are the words “For the Advancement of the Public Good.” That public good is not advanced by suspicion and exclusion. Every day the gates remain closed, Columbia betrays its commitment to academic freedom, civic engagement, and the free exchange of ideas.

Why the Gates Remain Closed

The administration faces a repressor’s paradox: lifting restrictions would invite protest, but maintaining them breeds disillusionment and instability. Federal hostility toward Columbia, particularly in the aftermath of last spring’s protests, has reinforced repression over reform. But repression is not a permanent strategy. Pressure will build until it bursts.

Where Authority Lies

Appeals to interim leadership are misplaced. Interim presidents are tasked with preserving the status quo, not enacting reform. Meaningful change must come from the University Senate, a body composed of students, faculty, and administrators empowered to oversee educational policy and university life. The Senate can compel change. It can act, if we demand it.

Evidence of Evasion

At a recent Town Hall, I asked for a reopening plan. Administrators cited "student sentiment" and fears about ICE to justify continued security. This justification is not only incoherent, it is unserious. Private guards cannot stop federal agents. No real plan was presented thereafter. It is transparent that security measures will quietly loosen when students leave for the summer and return when they come back. There is no plan to restore freedom, only a plan to manage appearances and federal scrutiny.

The Law is On Our Side

The right to free movement is a foundational American liberty. In Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, the Supreme Court struck down vague vagrancy laws, reaffirming that the freedom to walk, assemble, and wander without unjust interference is part of the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Columbia is not immune from these obligations. In Marsh v. Alabama, the Court held that a privately incorporated town could not infringe constitutional rights because it performed traditional public functions. By operating open spaces and integrating into the civic life of New York City, Columbia has long performed a public function.

Anticipating Objections

Some may cite Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, which upheld a mall’s right to bar protest, to argue that Columbia can close its campus. But Columbia is not a mall. It is not a commercial space but a civic one, historically open to the public and functionally embedded in city life. Like the company town in Marsh, it performs public functions. Under the doctrine of estoppel by representation, institutions that present themselves as public stewards cannot disavow that status when it becomes inconvenient.

Others may argue this is not a First Amendment matter at all. That is true. It is a Fourteenth Amendment matter. It is about freedom of movement, not just freedom of speech. It is about the ability to cross space without surveillance or suspicion. And it is about the nature of institutions that claim to serve the public.

Columbia cannot interminably shield its actions behind security concerns. The justifications offered, such as deterring federal agencies like ICE, do not withstand scrutiny. The real issue is protest. The administration fears unrest, and someone will eventually be blamed for it. An interim president is the perfect lightning rod: temporary, expendable, and positioned to absorb the fallout from lifting restrictions that a permanent successor might hesitate to confront.

Conclusion: Priests, Blow Your Trumpets

Recent dialogue between students and faculty has laid a necessary foundation. Faculty have affirmed, in a public letter, the centrality of free movement, free expression, and due process to Columbia’s mission. Students have responded respectfully but firmly, calling for these principles to be translated into action.

We are now engaged in dialogue. It is time to offer a clear and legally sound step forward. Drawing on foundational American liberties and rooted in Columbia’s own public commitments, we can demand a tangible first act of redress: reopening Morningside. This step would honor the faculty’s April 22 affirmation #6 of students’ right to move freely across campus.

Restoring freedom of movement is not radical. It is a modest reaffirmation of the values Columbia professes to serve. It would honor the spirit of our recent exchanges, move beyond platitudes, and begin to heal the breach between principle and practice that has opened over the past year.

The law, the history, and the University’s own words are on our side. The only question is whether those with authority will act.

The gates must open, and it falls to us as students, faculty, and citizens to ensure that they do.

---

You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:

• #Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, DylanRowling
• #Set DENYTOPICVIEW = TWikiGuest

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.