By Phoebe Bower (MPA ’23), Stephen Hart (MPA ’22), Elizabeth Horwitz (MPA ‘23), and Leanna Tang (MPA ’22) 

Accessibility within prestigious institutions should be the norm, not the exception. 

Nonetheless, the world looked on in shock and horror when Karine Elharrar, Israel’s Energy Minister, was unable to participate in a COP26 event due to a lack of wheelchair access. This faux pas was marketed as a regrettable, unfortunate one-off occurrence. 

Yet, the truth is that incidents like this, though less public, are common occurrences that the community with disabilities faces on a daily basis — including at Columbia and within our very own School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA).

Columbia: Failing to Adapt

Access to Columbia is a coveted privilege in more ways than one. Many expect accessibility to be at the heart of such a progressive institution, but the reality is quite different. While Columbia President Lee Bollinger has stated the university’s “sustained commitment” to diversity, the university is plagued by accessibility issues. These problems appear the moment you leave the subway station — that is, if you can leave. 

There is no step-free access from the 116th Street, Columbia University-branded subway station. 

While inaccessibility is not unique to the university-labeled station, it is a failure to students and subway riders that this station does not welcome everyone equally. 

Inaccessibility is a common problem across New York’s transportation system, where one-fifth of transit stations are physically inaccessible. Plans to make the stations accessible will not be completed until 2055, meaning current students will not see this station become accessible during their time at Columbia, or even within the next 20 years. 

The accessibility problem at Columbia extends beyond the subway, revealing the lack of consideration for students for disabilities all around campus. For instance, undergraduates with mobility needs hoping to visit friends in the residential McBain Hall will struggle since there is no step-free access. This is the case in more than a third of undergraduate dorms. 

The impacts of exclusivity of this nature are extensive — over 3,000 students are registered with Disability Services at Columbia. While not all registered students will require physical accessibility adjustments, this remains an important issue that should exist at the heart of equity and inclusion, something the university claims to prioritize. 

SIPA-Specific Problems

SIPA is not immune to these inaccessibility problems, either. Instead of leading the way and implementing disability-inclusive diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies — as one may expect of a policy school — SIPA has areas that only those without physical disabilities can enter. 

During the pandemic, the affectionately named fishbowl became one of the main areas where people could eat, take their masks off, and meet friends. Yet, there is no accessibility button enabling access to those who are unable to open its heavy doors. The only other outside area, located on the sixth floor, also does not have an accessibility button even though its entrance includes a rickety-looking, rusting ramp. This lack of awareness and maintenance of SIPA’s accessibility infrastructure shows a disregard for the needs of our community.   

The issues extend beyond outdoor spaces. SIPA lockers are on a different level to classes, requiring students to carry heavy bags around with them. Many bathrooms are also physically inaccessible, such as the one on the sixth floor (where the only cafe is located). If one were in a wheelchair, this would require taking the elevator down to the fourth floor, taking the wheelchair lift on the fourth floor, and then finally arriving at the fourth floor bathroom, all to repeat this to return to the sixth floor. In the meantime, key parts of classes and social events may be missed for something as simple as needing to use a restroom. 

When it comes to the academic experience, disability does not feature highly on SIPA’s own curriculum. For those looking to take coursework on disability and related health issues, there is limited scope at SIPA in both curricula and committees. Classes at SIPA rarely mention disabilities, and there are no classes that prioritize disability-inclusive policy — making disability seem too niche (or difficult) to be within SIPA’s mandate. DEI committees also do not appear to be fully disability-inclusive, including only one mention of disability in the most recent annual DEI report from SIPA. 

Students with disabilities have also expressed hardship in trying to secure their accommodations, as the current process is bureaucratic and confusing. The limited staff devoted to setting up accommodations at SIPA often forces students with disabilities to do double the work, from chasing note-taking accommodations to filling out exam-related forms. This is entirely antithetical to the purpose of accommodations, which are meant to create a more equitable environment for students with disabilities. While there are many incredible individuals within the SIPA administration and Columbia at large working to support students with disabilities, they are hindered by a severe lack of resources and capacity. 

The Value of Change

While acknowledging that improving accessibility and fostering a more inclusive environment requires additional resources, progress can radically change lives and experiences by creating a more welcoming space for those with disabilities — both physically and psychologically.

Challenging inaccessibility is important, because diversity and inclusion is what fosters community, creativity, and the potential for change. A lack of access within the campus environment cements differences between people and reduces opportunities for those affected, meaning that some students, faculty, and visitors have more positive campus experiences than others — perpetuating inequality. These barriers also increase imposter syndrome, negatively impact mental health, and increase student drop-out rates for students with disabilities. 

The continued inaccessibility on campus indicates that Columbia perhaps views accessibility on its campus as too difficult or too expensive to remedy. With an endowment of over $14 billion as of June 2021, Columbia’s expenditures reflect its priorities. As it stands, accessibility — and therefore equity — has not been appropriately reflected as a key priority. While there are restrictions on how such endowments are spent, one would imagine that a progressive institution like Columbia would prioritize a more accessible campus. 

A Call to Action

An inaccessible school environment is unjust and Columbia must take steps to remedy this, both for its students and as a statement that equity and accessibility are a priority. Columbia’s administration needs to enact a university-wide accessibility policy reflecting a higher standard of accessibility.

Firstly, Columbia should prioritize the accessibility issues within university buildings, as these are within its control and these changes can ensure that everyone has the opportunity to succeed and enjoy all that the campus has to offer. 

Secondly, Columbia should ensure that staff supporting students with disabilities receive more resources and infrastructure to properly ensure equity. Similarly, the university should pursue the MTA’s upgrade of the Columbia subway station infrastructure to make it accessible. While Columbia may not control the MTA station, Columbia’s silence and lack of action on this condones its inaccessibility. 

SIPA should lead the way on accessibility as it aims to educate and inspire the next generation of policymakers. We want to attend a school that we are proud of, and the lack of accessibility and equity at SIPA has been a disheartening reality that we want to see change. We hope that the new dean can build a legacy of inclusion where SIPA sets the gold standard for diversity, inclusion, and equity.   

We need to prioritize accessibility and equity within our environment and recognize that we all have different needs. It should no longer be acceptable for institutions to rely on loopholes to perpetuate inaccessibility. While former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson apologized to Karine Elharrar for the COP26 event’s lack of accessibility, such apologies lack true acknowledgement of how prevalent, yet avoidable, these issues are. 

It is time for prestigious and seemingly progressive institutions, especially Columbia, to open their lofty heights to all and not just a privileged few.

***

Authors’ Note: We acknowledge that each person experiences disability differently and that this piece may not reflect everyone’s experiences. We hope this piece draws attention to issues we have perceived at Columbia. The authors desire that equity and accessibility will improve on campus and that those with more experience and expertise will assist with this transition. We value the input from those who have experiences with the issues discussed in this op-ed. We also thank the allies and advocates, including at Columbia, SIPA, and beyond, who are often under-resourced and stretched, but work tirelessly to make our campus more accessible.

Phoebe Bower (MPA ’23) is pursuing her MPA in human rights, social policy, and gender policy at SIPA. Prior to SIPA, Phoebe was a lawyer specialising in sovereign debt and ESG finance, while also working on pro bono cases ranging from death penalty mitigation to protecting marine ecosystems.

Stephen Hart (MPA-ESP ’22) is a recent MPA in Environmental Science & Policy graduate. Before graduate school, he helped manage a global research project portfolio advancing scientific discovery, developing corporate partnerships for sustainability, and conserving the planet.

Leanna Tang (MPA-ESP ’22) is a recent MPA in Environmental Science and Policy graduate interested in the intersection between the environment, economics, and equity.

Elizabeth Horwitz (MPA‘23) is pursuing her MPA in Urban and Social Policy and serving as Vice President of Engagement for SIPA’s Global Health Association and a member of the SIPASA Academic Advisory Board. With legislative and budgetary experience at the New York City Council and work in local community organizing, she plans a career focused on improving social policy outcomes in the United States.