I have a potentially unhealthy obsession with something no one else seems to care about: the Columbia Association.
It is not entirely fair to say that no one else seems to care much about the Columbia Association. The truth is that most people don’t care, but a small number of people really, really care. And I am one of them.
This dichotomous dynamic—community-wide complacency combined with narrow, intense interest from a select few—has characterized the Columbia Association’s governance and politics for almost its entire existence. How and why it got this way and what to do about it are the questions I hope to confront on this blog over the next few weeks, months, years, whatever.
Despite some high-profile disagreements with CA and members of its leadership over the years, however, I’m not embarking on this work out of spite, professional obligation, or personal animosity. (At least I don’t think I am, but we’re all selfish beings with fine-tuned engines for motivated reasoning so who really knows what underlies any of our actions?)
I am writing because of a long-held conviction that CA can be so much better than it is.
That’s a pretty vague statement and it could mean all sorts of things. Anyone who’s followed CA over the years also knows that making it “better” has been the rallying cry of the most significant—and, more or less, only—community advocacy organization focused on CA, the Alliance for a Better Columbia.
So, I should clarify what I mean by “better.” Columbia is a special city founded on a set of lofty, aspirational ideals and CA is the only organization that exists expressly to promote the social welfare of this city. While Columbia continues to be a great place to live and work, it has evolved from its early days and faces challenges—both local and global in scale—that call into question the foundational values upon which it was built.
A better CA, therefore, is one that recognizes its unique role as a steward of the ethos, values, and aspirations of Columbia’s founding; it is one that examines its place within the cultural, social, and political currents of the day and asks whether its actions embody the core values of the organization and the community it serves; and it is one that questions its institutional structures, biases, and blindspots to ensure its practices and programs are not undermining its own mission; and it is one that proactively seeks to include voices and viewpoints that are or have been underrepresented among its leadership.
In short, a “better” CA is one that pursues the aspirations of Columbia’s founding and holds itself accountable to those values and ideals.
It is the only institution that is truly dedicated to this “garden for growing people” and my contention is that it is currently failing to live up to this critical role.
Amidst the howling social, cultural, economic, and political winds of our time, CA is unmoored and adrift, uncertain about what it is or what it should be. This predicament became even more precarious in the last six months as the pandemic brought on dire, existential questions. In answering these questions, CA’s leaders choose to prioritize re-starting its fitness businesses, which serve “members” and “customers,” while abandoning most of the community programs and services that are available to all residents.
During the greatest disruption in social and community life in CA’s existence, it chose business over community, and this, in my mind, the most glaring example of why Columbia needs CA to be better.
However, before CA can be the better organization that I know it can be, there needs to be a shared literacy about what it is, how it got here, what it does, and what it can be.
Consider this a spotlight, dim as it is, to help illuminate and understand the path we took to get here, the intersection where we now stand, and the divergent paths that lie ahead.
