GUEST POST: Columbia controversy escalates further

The conflict over anti-Semitism at Columbia university, arguably the epicentre of anti-Israel activity in America, seems to be escalating. Last week alone  saw protests against the unprecedented expulsion of disruptive anti-Israel students and the withdrawal of $400m (£310m) in federal funding by the Trump administration.

Many of the protests have focused on Barnard college, Columbia’s next door sister institution. This week saw an occupation of the Milstein Center, which includes its main library, by masked protestors. They chanted against Israel’s existence and used Jihadi imagery. When protestors refused to leave after the administration received a bomb threat it finally called in the New York Police Department to clear the building. 

The Barnard protests followed demonstrations at Columbia itself after Naftali Bennet, a former Israeli prime minister, spoke at an invitation-only event. There were protests at Columbia’s main gate in response. The following morning one of the protestors harassed Keren Yarhi-Milo, the Dean of the School of International Affairs, as she is Israeli and moderated the Bennet event. 

At the end of the week it was revealed that the Trump administration has cancelled $400m (£310m) in grants to Columbia. The cuts were justified on the grounds that the university has not complied with anti-discrimination laws in relation to its Jewish students. 

According to the recently created Department of Justice anti-Semitism task force this is only the first round of grant cancellations Columbia may suffer. Overall the Ivy League institution is estimated to be in receipt of $5 billion of active federal grants. Although elite American universities typically have their own large endowments they also receive substantial sums from the federal government.

Last week’s frenetic activity follow a large number of controversies at Columbia since Hamas’s 7 October pogrom on southern Israel on 7 October 2023.

In late February students occupied Milbank Hall, part of Barnard, to demand the reversal of the unprecedented expulsion of two student protestors. The following day there was another demonstration on the same theme outside Barnard’s gates. 

The expelled pair had been thrown out after disrupting the first session of a history of modern Israel course in January. Barnard President Laura Rosenbury said in a statement to the Columbia Spectator, the student newspaper, that “as a matter of principle and policy, Barnard will always take decisive action to protect our community as a place where learning thrives, individuals feel safe, and higher education is celebrated”. A third student has also been expelled because of their involvement in the occupation of Hamilton Hall, the university’s headquarters, in April 2024. 

The protesters are not doing their cause any favours in the court of public opinion. Mayor Eric Adams denounced the Milbank Hall sit-in and the following day’s protest. He said he supported the right to peaceful protest but not to harass or threaten others or do them physical harm.

Nor have they had any impact on the university's institutional policy towards Israel. On the contrary, Yoav Kisch, Israel’s minister of education, met with Interim University President Katrina Armstrong and Provost Angela Olinto to discuss expanding academic co-operation between Israel and America. They also examined how to combat anti-Semitic activity on Columbia’s campus.

Perhaps the most remarkable development at Columbia was Katrina Armstrong’s recent announcement that plans were being formulated to adapt a policy of institutional neutrality. That is the idea that the university administration should not take a position on political issues unless they threaten the mission of the university. If this approach comes to fruition (it should be known by the end of the academic year) Columbia will have travelled a long way from where it was in October 2023. 

Institutional neutrality would give the university a way of dealing with demands to divest from and boycott Israel at the administrative level. It would not prevent individuals or departments from mounting a boycott. Nor would it directly impact the experience of Jewish students on campus. In any event Columbia’s hosting of senior Israeli politicians suggests it has no intention of boycotting Israel on an institutional level.

Katrina Armstrong's advocacy of neutrality may turn out to be wise. That is as long as it is combined with the continued application of due penalty to those who abuse the right to protest. Institutional neutrality could have avoided some of Columbia’s difficulties in the immediate aftermath of the 7 October pogrom. 

Armstrong’s embrace of neutrality could have been influenced by that of President Alan Garber at Harvard. He has been credited with improving the situation there by embracing the approach. 

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Donald Trump’s presidential election victory has helped prompt the dramatic shift. Even before his election Columbia faced a backlash from donors but the pressure to take a harder line on disruptive protests has increased since. Other factors include demands from congress and a potential threat to research funds from the federal government’s newly established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

In addition, the new federal anti-Semitism task force is due to visit Columbia, Harvard and other universities soon. It will bring the explicit threat that even harsher funding cuts will follow if the situation regarding anti-Semitism on their campus has not improved. 

To be sure there are some who are sceptical of those who make pronouncements against anti-Semitism. An open letter by some Jewish faculty in the Columbia Spectator argued that the accusation of anti-Semitism is being weaponised. Their claim is based on the Jerusalem Declaration of anti-Semitism which defines it solely in relation to hostility to “Jews as Jews”.

How much the Trump administration is genuinely concerned about anti-Semitism is debatable. At a private gathering Robert Kennedy junior, the Secretary of Health, recently gave support to a conspiracy theory that the covid-19 virus was designed to spare Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people. Meanwhile, Elon Musk, the head of DOGE, has allowed anti-Semitic material to spread on his X social media platform. 

There could be a backlash if it turns out the Trump administration is using concerns regarding anti-Semitism for a cynical war on higher education. That would mean Jewish students and staff becoming victims twice over. First, because of what happened in the lead up to and the aftermath of the protests following 7 October. Then getting caught in the fallout from resentment against DOGE and congressional investigations. 

It should not be forgotten that these problems stem from the university authorities’ failure to grapple with anti-Semitism on campus from 7 October 2023 onwards.

Guy Whitehouse is a member of the Academy of Ideas and the Free Speech Union. His views do not necessarily reflect those of those organisations.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of the Radicalism of fools project.

PHOTO: "WikiDay 2015 - Barnard College Gates 1" by BrillLyle is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.