BY HANK REICHMAN

As a Columbia alum (College ’69), participant in that university’s 1968 student rebellion, advocate for academic freedom and free expression rights, and as a Jew, I have followed developments at Columbia over the past few days with great interest.  On Wednesday came the appearance by the co-chairs of the university’s Board of Trustees alongside Columbia’s president at the House Education and Labor Committee’s latest sham “hearing” on allegations of antisemitism on campus, a “set up from the get-go” where, as AAUP President Irene Mulvey puts it in her excellent statement issued today, both academic freedom and the faculty were thrown “under the bus.”  Then yesterday, in a chilling echo of 1968, Columbia called in the NYPD to arrest more than a hundred protesting students at a “Gaza Solidarity Encampment.”

I am appalled!

Let’s begin with Columbia President Baroness Nemak (Minouche) Shafik’s Congressional testimony. (Yes, Shafik was given a peerage in 2020 during her tenure heading the London School of Economics and may be addressed as Dame or Lady Shafik.)  Unfortunately, there are only so many synonyms for “craven,” which is how she and her trustees behaved when grilled by the wannabe Joe McCarthys on the committee, led by chair Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC, who may be more reminiscent of Martin Dies, but why quibble) and the always-opportunist Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY).  Chastened by the treatment of the (now former) presidents of Harvard and Penn back in December, Shafik was clearly eager to please.  Ignoring the detailed and principled advice offered by a group of Columbia’s Jewish faculty (which I posted to this blog a few days ago) or the terrific suggested testimony provided by literature professor Katherine Stern in the Columbia Spectator, Shafik instead offered “wholehearted condemnations of the protestors, assents to bad-faith mischaracterizations of the students as antisemitic and genocidal, and public, apparently on-the-spot, personnel decisions that removed some pro-Palestinian faculty and staff from their positions,” to quote Moira Donegan in The Guardian.

As Len Gutkin, editor of the Chronicle of Higher Education Review, points out, entirely absent from the hearing was any mention, much less serious discussion, of academic freedom.  It’s hardly a surprise that the Republicans showed no interest in that concept.  If they are not merely ignorant of it, they likely don’t support it at all.  And, frankly, it’s not all that more surprising if most of the Democrats don’t really care so much about academic freedom either.  That’s why it was so terribly incumbent on Shafik and company to stand up for the principle.  Instead, they capitulated in one of the most embarrassing displays of boot-licking ever seen in the embarrassing history of such Congressional show trials.  As Joan Scott asked in an email, “I can’t think of a university president who cooperated outright in this fashion in the ’50s and ’60s.  They may have advised their faculty to name names when called by a committee, they may have fired those labeled or presumed to be communists, but did they actually ever publicly promise to investigate, fire or punish named faculty members?”

Most egregious was Shafik’s response to questions about individual Columbia faculty members.  When asked about Columbia professor Joseph Massad, who shortly after October 7 posted an article that was represented by the committee as celebrating the Hamas attack — even if it did so (though Massad insists it didn’t), it’s still extramural expression clearly protected by academic freedom — Shafik responded that “he has been spoken to.”  When the questioning persisted, she agreed on the spot to remove him from a committee chairmanship and, it seems, to initiate an “investigation.”  In a public response, Massad replied:

It is unfortunate that President Shafik and the two members of the Columbia University Board of Trustees, including Ms. Claire Shipman and Mr. David Greenwald, would condemn fabricated statements that I never made when all three of them should have corrected the record to show that I never said or wrote such reprehensible statements.  Also, the false and defamatory allegations which Representative Tim Walberg made against me alleging that I gave “support of terrorism” and engaged in “harassing Jewish students” should also have immediately been responded to by President Shafik and the trustees as false, as I have never harassed any of my students and never supported terrorism.

Moreover, President Shafik indicated that I am currently “under investigation” for making discriminatory comments.  This is news to me, as I have not been informed or contacted by anyone from the university to inform me of this alleged investigation.  In fact, I had a meeting last week with the Columbia University Provost, Angela Olinto, about being subjected to harassment and racism by another university professor.  Provost Olinto conveyed to me her support and that she was sorry that I had been subjected to such harassment.  The offending professor is the one currently being investigated.

Shafik responded similarly to questions about law professor Katherine Franke and a visiting scholar, who she pledged would “never teach at Columbia again.”

To be fair, when progressive Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) inquired about business professor Shai Davidai, an Israeli who, unlike Massad and Franke, has been accused multiple times of specific incidents of harassing pro-Palestinian students, Shafik acknowledged that “we’ve had more than 50 complaints about that professor, and he is currently under investigation for harassment and discrimination.”  (Yesterday, Omar’s daughter, a student at Barnard College, the women’s college at Columbia, was suspended and arrested for her participation in the Gaza encampment.)

In fact, in all these cases Shafik should have clearly stated that in their expression as citizens faculty members speak for themselves and not for the university and must be free to do so, but that the university takes seriously and will investigate credible charges of discrimination and harassment.  However, she should have emphasized, like all personnel matters such investigations are and must be conducted in confidence, for the protection of all parties involved.  They must not serve as fodder for political demagogy.

To be sure, the hearing had its elements of humor, though these too were sadly revealing.  There was the Congress member who, quoting Genesis, asked in all seriousness whether Columbia was “cursed by God,” apparently blissfully unaware that Columbia freshmen are required to read major portions of the Old Testament, including Genesis, as part of the college’s renowned Core Curriculum.  When Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN) — who had previously played a nefarious role in the suspension of an Indiana University professor — inquired about the use of the term “Ashkenormativity” in material from Columbia’s School of Social Work, suggesting that it was antisemitic, Shafik agreed that it is not “acceptable.”  The two trustees then ignorantly chimed in to declare the term “shockingly offensive” and “ridiculous.”  Yet “Ashkenormativity” has actually been coined and used by scholars in Jewish Studies, themselves mainly Jewish, to describe the assertion of cultural customs shared by Jews of Ashkenazi (East European) background as normative over customs more common in Sephardic (South European and North African) or Mizrahi (Middle Eastern) Jewish communities.  It’s no crime that Shafik and the two trustees didn’t know the term and its scholarly usage — neither did I until yesterday —  but, as Gutkin points out, “When members of the board pass invidious comments on sociological concepts from academic fields they know nothing about, academic freedom is in peril indeed.”

Then there are yesterday’s arrests.  I am not insensitive to the difficulties presented to university administrations by student activism.  Sometimes administrators may be compelled to make a devil’s choice between campus security and free expression.  But the encampment removed yesterday was not disrupting any ongoing university activity and there was plenty of time to clear the lawn before it would be used next month for commencement.  Personally, I might not have joined this demonstration as I did the building occupations of 1968 (and not only because I’m so much older).  However, I must agree with Moira Donegan’s conclusion that the arrests marked

an extension of the policy of appeasement and preemptive compliance with the anti-Palestinian, anti-student Republican right that Shafik adopted in her testimony.  In its war on education and ostentatious displays of grievance against “woke” universities, the far right has made itself hostile to academic freedom, peaceful protest and vast swaths of progressive speech.  In her willingness to unleash state violence against student protestors, Shafik proved herself their willing ally.  It is worth stating plainly what happened at Columbia: the raid was nothing less than the product of collusion between a university administration and rightwing politicians to suppress politically disfavored speech.

Moreover, the evidence is overwhelming that the arrests were but an escalation of a largely one-sided effort to silence student protest and even student debate and discussion that began last Fall with the swift banning of two pro-Palestinian student groups and the adoption of overly repressive new student conduct regulations at Barnard and Columbia, implemented with no faculty or student input.

Here is how one student describes the atmosphere even before the events of the past few days:

It seems like every week, Columbia students find themselves with a new restriction on their First Amendment rights.  What we’re witnessing on campus is an unrivaled attempt to suppress student voices.  Columbia administration has continuously reached new lows throughout this school year as they seemingly work overtime to curb student expression and freedom of speech. . . .

Since October 2023, Columbia and Barnard administration has engaged in a wide assortment of tactics to curtail free speech, including but not limited to banning dorm door decorations, establishing “designated demonstration zones,” tearing down posters honoring Palestinian academics who have been killed, and reportedly monitoring campus wifi networks without prior notice to the student body.

As I posted on this blog in January, Barnard President Laura Rosenbury arrived on campus fresh from her subservience to the Ron DeSantis regime at the University of Florida (for a more thorough look at Rosenbury and her background see “President Rosenbury’s Bold. Beautiful. Censorship.” in the Spectator) and quickly imposed an especially repressive speech regime on campus.  In January, Barnard initiated disciplinary proceedings against at least 19 students accused of attending a single pro-Palestinian protest.  Barnard and Columbia faculty members have been accompanying accused students, who are not permitted an attorney, to hearings.  Debbie Becher, an associate professor of sociology, said that “the trust is absolutely broken” between students and the administration.  She accompanied two students to their respective inquiry meetings.

“The administration could have had conversations with these students without the threat, without a gun to their head,” Becher said.  “And that’s not what they do.  These particular meetings seem to be targeting the most vulnerable students, students of color, first-gen students, low-income students, not only, but certainly a great number of them are wrapped up in this,” Becher said.

Professor of Anthropology Nadia Abu El-Haj said the hearings establish a “confrontational relationship” between students and the administration.  “It feels like this whole process is really about intimidation.  That is certainly how the students are experiencing it.”  She added, “I really don’t care what these students’ politics are.  I don’t understand the way the administrations have been responding.  It seems overly disciplinary, it seems overly cruel.  And are we really not going to allow civil protests on campuses?”

And consider this account from a later hearing circulated on Twitter (er, I mean X?) by a Columbia professor:

On the bright side in all this has been the active engagement of at least a portion of Columbia’s faculty in support of academic freedom and free expression, a welcome change from what I recall from 1968.  As of January 21, 106 Barnard faculty had signed onto a public letter to Rosenbury, which reads in part:

We write concerning the disciplinary proceedings against nearly two dozen Barnard students, proceedings which accuse them of attending and, in some cases, organizing an ‘unauthorized protest.’  While the summonses issued to students may be supported by specific college rules, the college’s unprecedented decision to enforce these rules in a way that adversely affects students with one particular set of political beliefs undermines any collective sense of transparency, process, procedure, or fairness.

And then there is the issue of antisemitism.  Not the phony antisemitism ginned up by members of Congress who are silent when their own party leaders encourage those who boldly chant “Jews will not replace us.”  Have there been real antisemitic incidents on the Columbia campus?  I’d be surprised if there weren’t.  Have some of these been associated with overzealous advocates for the Palestinian cause?  Likely some have been.  But consider the poignant words of one Jewish Columbia student who has spoken out against the ongoing massacre in Gaza and for a just peace.  To some he is no longer a Jew but an “un-Jew.”  He writes:

Though I would be considered Jewish by all the strictest standards of Jewish law, I have come to realize that in the eyes of my pro-Israel Jewish peers, I am not one of them.  It does not matter that both my parents are 100 percent ethnically Jewish, that I went to an Orthodox day school for 12 years, that I attended synagogue every Shabbat growing up, that I participated in Jewish summer camp and Jewish youth group in high school, that I have worn my kippa proudly since seventh grade, or anything else.  The moment I chose to stand with Palestine, in their eyes, I forfeited my Jewishness and became an un-Jew. . . .

The phrase “un-Jew” is no longer mere semantics; it has become the reality of anti-Zionist Jews at Columbia.  We are afraid to set foot in Hillel, we are publicly blasted by organizations and individuals that, unlike us, actually do claim to represent the Jewish community as a whole.  Students Supporting Israel and Shai Davidai implicitly and explicitly smear us as fake Jews and as antisemites, accusing us of calling for the genocide of Jews while erasing us from Judaism.  The particular form of hatred reserved for anti-Zionist Jews permeates every aspect of our interactions with the community that is meant to be our own.  I see this in the targeting of pro-Palestinian Jews in the chemical attack, but I see it elsewhere too.  I see it in the dirty looks I get from other students every time I swipe into Hewitt and they see a kippa and a keffiyeh on the same body.  I see it in the way that Israeli students interested in “dialogue” approach my Palestinian friends who are standing right next to me but pretend that I am invisible.  I see it in the students who spit on my Jewish friends, who block my path and body check me on campus, who scream at me when they recognize me off campus. . . .

When my Jewish peers turn from me in disgust on the sidewalk, when they call me names, and even when they spray me with chemical weapons, it is because they are afraid of me.  Not in the way they claim to be afraid of my Palestinian friends—in their hearts, I believe they know that I am not antisemitic, that I would never hurt a member of my community, that I believe in a Jewish future just as much as they do.  But it is my very Jewishness that makes me so scary to them.  It is the fact that I, too, will be building the Jewish future—that no matter what they claim, I will never relinquish my place in Klal Yisrael, and that no matter how hard they try, they will never succeed in pushing me out.

Why, I must ask, is this voice and others like it not heard?  Where are Shafik and her Congressional allies when such courageous young people seek to speak?

Yesterday evening the Columbia Spectator published an editorial entitled “Is Columbia in Crisis?”  It is a powerful statement that reads in part:

The administration has failed to genuinely engage with its students, faculty, and staff as we—the Columbia community—are forced to watch our beloved University slowly unravel into a space of distrust, suppression, and fear.  Only one day after her hearing, Shafik has proven to her students yet again the administration’s commitment to silencing and marginalizing its own student body.

Shafik’s authorization of the New York Police Department to enter campus and forcibly remove peaceful protesters spotlights the emptiness and duplicity of the promises she made to Congress and the Columbia community.  In her opening statement to the Committee, Shafik claimed that she has always “held on to four principles”: prioritizing safety as being paramount, demonstrating “care and compassion equally to everyone,” upholding freedom of nondiscriminatory and non-abusive speech, and affirming education as the ultimate answer to antisemitism and hate.  Much like the “community values” that have been hypocritically implemented by administrators, not only have Shafik’s principles been void from the very beginning of her administration’s response to events after October 7, 2023, but her response to the “Gaza Solidarity Encampment” only further cements her selectivity in enforcing her “principles.”  When the NYPD Strategic Response Group—which the New York Civil Liberties Union has repeatedly characterized as “notoriously violent”—is welcomed onto campus with open arms, it is Shafik who “disrupts campus life” and infringes on her supposedly paramount principle of safety.  How can students, especially those of color, feel safe when their campus is flooded by a police force infested with systemic racism and armed with riot gear?  Clearly, “care and compassion” are not being extended equally to everyone. . . .

Columbia’s crisis is not as the committee has attempted to define it—a characterization stemming from the belief that the University has become a hotbed of antisemitic thought and behavior.  Rather, the crisis is rooted in a lack of genuine community engagement on the part of the administration, as well as a failure to fulfill its duty of care to all affiliates. . . .

So admin, what are you going to do?  Introduce more interim policies?  Send out more threatening emails to anyone adjacent to campus activism?  Suspend more students until your entire student population falls into line?  Or, maybe, allow your students to become stakeholders in a community into which they invest hundreds of thousands of dollars and four years of their lives?

Your students are willingly risking suspension, arrests, harassment, and internal and external threats—why do you continue to isolate yourself from those whom you allegedly seek to serve?  What is the role of the University if not to advocate for—and protect—its students?  It is too late to pretend to walk the tightrope of bipartisanship.  President Shafik, in your own words from your email announcing student arrests, when will you “show compassion and remember the values of empathy and respect,” for the students, staff, and faculty who call on you and your administration to represent their interests?  It is you and your administration who pull us apart as a community instead of drawing us together. . . .

Hundreds of campus affiliates stood witness as the NYPD disgracefully arrested over 100 of our classmates, friends, and colleagues for peacefully protesting.  Similar scenes unfolded when the NYPD was previously invited onto campus over 50 years ago during the anti-war protests of 1968.  History has made clear who stood on the wrong side then, and it’s clear that this is the side you are aligning yourself with now.  This will be your legacy.  You must confront your failure to fulfill your duty of protecting and representing your students and their concerns.  Otherwise, you will further marginalize, endanger, and distance your students, indefinitely trapping Columbia in its self-inflicted crisis.

I am well aware, and have been aware since my days as a student there, that Columbia’s trustees and administration are part of and ultimately serve the interests of what we may call the moneyed establishment.  I am aware that even under Shafik’s immediate predecessor, Lee Bollinger, a prominent champion of the First Amendment, Columbia still persisted in an unsuccessful, but inordinately nasty, campaign against its own graduate students seeking to unionize.  But in her short time in office President Shafik has already distinguished herself as the worst Columbia president since that bumbling Cold Warrior Grayson Kirk.  As the Barnard and Columbia chapters of the AAUP declared today in a joint statement,

In Wednesday’s hearing, President Shafik repeatedly claimed that she was inaugurating a new era at Columbia.  Her actions thus far suggest that this era will be one of repressed speech, political restrictions on academic inquiry, and punitive discipline against the University’s own students and faculty.  As the protesters’ chant rightly states, “Protest is democracy; this is a travesty!”  AAUP Barnard and Columbia pledge continued support for our students’ right to protest and to speak freely, and for our colleagues’ right to teach and to write freely within their domains of expertise.  We have lost confidence in our president and administration, and we pledge to fight to reclaim our university.

It is already high time for the Baroness to step down and return to her peerage.

Contributing editor Hank Reichman is professor emeritus of history at California State University, East Bay; former AAUP vice-president and chair of the AAUP Foundation; and from 2012-2021 Chair of AAUP’s Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure. His book, The Future of Academic Freedom, based in part on posts to this blog, was published in 2019.  His Understanding Academic Freedom was published in October, 2021; a second edition is in preparation.