14.03.24
Editorial Note
Shai Davidai, an Israeli assistant professor at the Columbia University Business School, is being investigated by the Columbia administration. Davidai gained prominence by criticizing the failure of the university to respond to antisemitism on campus. He charged the university’s leadership for letting anti-Israel sentiment and antisemitism flourish. When asked about the charges, Davidai stated that he could not comment on the details because of the university’s bylaws; he added that the University’s Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action was carrying out the investigation. Davidai broke into the public sphere soon after Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel, which triggered widespread anti-Israel protests on all college campuses, including Columbia. A video of his impassioned speech went viral instantly. Clearly, his advocacy for Israel and Jews made him a target. Law firm Kasowitz Benson Torres represents Davidai.
In response to allegations, Davidai said, “Nothing I have done in my advocacy in the past five months has been about any protected class… Unless they want to claim that supporting terrorism is a protected class, there’s no grounds for this investigation.” Davidai announced on social media that he has repeatedly advocated for Palestinian rights.
Due to the surge of antisemitic incidents on campus, Columbia University is facing investigations by Congress. CNN reported that the House Education and Workforce Committee announced a hearing on April 17 featuring Columbia President Minouche Shafik and the two co-chairs of the board of trustees: Claire Shipman and David Greenwald. Last month, the House Education Committee widened its campus antisemitism investigation to include Columbia. It demanded the Ivy League school turn over a wide range of documents to aid that probe. “Some of the worst cases of antisemitic assaults, harassment, and vandalism on campus have occurred at Columbia University,” said Rep. Virginia Foxx, the Republican chairwoman of the committee. “Due to the severe and pervasive nature of these cases, and the Columbia administration’s failure to enforce its own policies to protect Jewish students, the Committee must hear from Columbia’s leadership in person to learn how the school is addressing antisemitism on its campus.”
At a roundtable event held by the Committee earlier this month, Eden Yadegar, a junior at Columbia University and the president of Students Supporting Israel, described how Jewish students were attacked by people wielding sticks outside of the university library. “We have been attacked by sticks outside our library. We have been attacked by angry mobs and we have been threatened to ‘Keep f—ing running.’” Last fall, a Columbia student who was hanging posters on campus in support of Israel was assaulted. Days later, a mobile “doxxing” billboard drove outside the entrance of Columbia displaying the names and faces of students who a conservative nonprofit said were linked to a statement blaming Israel for the Hamas terror attack.
In response, Samantha Slater, the Columbia spokesperson, told CNN that antisemitism is “antithetical” to the university’s values. “Columbia is committed to combating antisemitism and we welcome the opportunity to discuss our work to protect and support Jewish students and keep our community safe.”
Earlier this month, the Columbia University Office of the President published a report by its Task Force on Antisemitism. According to the report, the Task Force has heard of “the isolation and pain many Jewish and Israeli Columbia affiliates have experienced in recent months. While mourning Hamas’s unspeakable atrocities on October 7, some Jewish and Israeli Columbia affiliates have been the object of racist epithets and graffiti, antisemitic tropes, and confrontational and unwelcome questions, while others have found their participation in some student groups that have nothing to do with politics to be increasingly uncomfortable. Israeli Columbia affiliates have been criticized and stereotyped for serving in the military, something most Israelis are required to do. Some Jewish students have felt isolated in supporting Israel, while others have felt isolated in criticizing Israel. While there is strong support among Jewish and Israeli Columbia affiliates for the right to protest, as well as widespread heartbreak about the tragic loss of civilian life in Gaza, many have heard chants at protests like ‘Globalize the Intifada’ and ‘Death to the Zionist State’ as calls for violence against them and their families.”
Allegations against Davidai appeared on the pages of the Columbia student newspaper, the Spectator, which reported in mid-February that a group of social psychology graduate students from the Society of Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP) sent a letter on Feb. 7 to the academic society’s executive committee calling to sanction Davidai; a member of SPSP charged that he“has intentionally targeted and put vulnerable students from multiply marginalized racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds at risk through his actions.” The letter was authored by a group, “SPSP Graduate Students Against Racism,” comprised of individuals “from racially minoritized backgrounds, pro-Palestinian, and/or themselves Palestinian” and did not feel “safe disclosing [their] identities given Davidai’s targeting of individuals—especially Palestinians and students of color—who have expressed similar views.”
According to the Spectator, the letter cites seven incidents of Davidai’s social media activity from Oct. 13, 2023, to Jan. 20, 2024, concerning pro-Palestinian campus protests. The letter states that these posts “have violated SPSP’s Code of Conduct with respect to expected and prohibited behavior from SPSP members.”
The Spectator brings some examples:
– Dec. 11, 2023 tweet, according to the Spectator, the letter states that Davidai called for the expulsion of Columbia students and that he “misrepresent[ed] pro-Palestinian protests as calls for genocide.” That “By calling for peaceful and non-violent student protestors to be expelled and misrepresenting their slogans as calls for genocide (e.g., equating ‘intifada’ with calls for genocide of Jews), Dr. Davidai put vulnerable students at risk of violence from bad faith actors, and encouraged serious administrative action from the university,” the letter reads. “It is important to note here that many of these student protestors have lost multiple family members in the ongoing military operation in Gaza, and are grieving.”
– Jan. 16 tweet, according to the Spectator, in which Davidai issued “another ‘call to action’ for his followers to write to various Columbia administrators, including University President Minouche Shafik, to suspend student groups [Students for Justice in Palestine] and [Jewish Voice for Peace]. The tweet included a link to a pre-prepared email script which called for the suspension of SJP and JVP student organizations.”
– Jan. 16 tweet, according to the Spectator, Davidai made in an email “serious and spurious allegations against an individual Muslim woman student at Columbia, putting a student from an already vulnerable group at elevated risk, and contained links to tweets which doxxed and smeared this student on social media.” Davidai said, “I have never doxxed a Columbia student, I have never named a Columbia student, I have never targeted a Columbia student.” He added that he has posted videos taken in public space about public comments in which students participated. Conservative media group Accuracy in Media deployed “doxxing trucks” to Columbia’s Morningside campus on Oct. 25, 2023, displaying the names and faces of affiliates allegedly involved in student groups who signed onto a pro-Palestinian student statement released on Oct. 12, 2023, under the words “Columbia’s Leading Antisemites.” The truck recirculated on the Morningside campus several times following its initial appearance. “Most of the students in these protests are good people … [but] they have been hijacked by the organizers of SJP, JVP, and [Columbia University Apartheid Divest],” Davidai said, adding that he feels bad for the students who are uninvolved because “their entire year is being disrupted by a small radical group that doesn’t care about education… they care about revolution.”
– Jan. 17 tweet where Davidai, according to the Spectator, described Columbia students as “pro-terror,” with the authors of the letter writing that they were “highly concerned that this … pattern of behavior will only work to endanger students at Columbia and those who wish to express their support for Palestine and Palestinians at the SPSP conference.” The authors of the letter called these violations “a threat to the safety and inclusivity of the SPSP community both within and beyond formal Society events, particularly for individuals of Muslim and Arab backgrounds, and those who advocate for Palestinian liberation, who are already experiencing heightened vulnerability.”
Horrified by the accusations against Davidai, a group named “We Are Tov” started a petition titled “Defend Davidai: Demand that Columbia End its Persecution of Jewish Professor Shai Davidai” on March 11, 2024. The petition states, “If Shai Can’t Speak, How Can I?” The petition begins by declaring, “We, the undersigned, are deeply troubled by the baseless investigation initiated by Columbia University against Assistant Professor Shai Davidai at Columbia’s Business School. He has courageously spoken out against the hostile environment that Jewish and Israeli individuals face on Columbia’s campus. Since October 7th, Shai has been a vocal advocate for Jewish students’ safety and rights. Yet, instead of supporting him and the students he represents, Columbia’s leadership has turned a blind eye to antisemitism and failed to provide a safe environment for Jews on campus. Now, in a blatant act of retaliation, Columbia has launched an internal investigation against Shai, aiming to silence him for speaking out against systemic antisemitism and the university’s failure to address it.”
According to the petitioners, “Over the past five months, Jewish students at Columbia have been locking themselves in their dorm rooms for fear of being assaulted. They have been spat on, attacked, bullied, and vilified. And they have been harassed by pro-terror student organizations that justify, excuse, and celebrate the massacre of Jews while chanting for their eradication ‘by any means necessary.’ These organizations – which have been suspended due to their hate-filled rhetoric – continue to hold unauthorized pro-terror rallies on campus without any fear of disciplinary action. Columbia refuses to enforce the terms of their suspension but instead pursues this baseless investigation into Shai. Shai’s commitment to holding Columbia to account for their actions has resulted in death threats.”
According to the petition, Davidai “is relentlessly targeted on social media (including by Columbia students and faculty). He – out of fear of being assaulted – avoids spending time on campus. And now, in the ultimate act of betrayal, he is being persecuted by Columbia’s leadership, which is retaliating against him with a sham investigation based on meritless “complaints.” Shai should be applauded for his actions – not punished. His refusal to remain silent has empowered students to speak out against antisemitism on campuses everywhere. By silencing Shai, Columbia is effectively silencing Jewish students everywhere. After all, if a respected professor cannot speak out against antisemitism without facing retribution, how can a student be expected to do so?”
The petitioning group stated its demands: “Drop the Investigation: We demand that Columbia University immediately drop its internal investigation against Professor Davidai. Create a Safe Environment: Columbia’s leadership must take proactive steps to create a safer and more inclusive environment for Jewish students and faculty. This includes: Punishing and enforcing sanctions against organizations that harass and bully Jewish students. Working with law enforcement and aiding in the prosecution of individuals who commit hate crimes against Jewish individuals. Encouraging Jewish students to report harassment without fear of reprisal. Implementing increased safety and security measures for Jewish students and organizations.”
IAM will report on this case as it unfolds.
REFERENCES:
Israeli professor who’s slammed campus antisemitism says Columbia investigating him
Shai Davidai calls probe unwarranted unless ‘supporting terrorism is a protected class,’ says university ‘cannot just create some sort of Dreyfus trial in order to get rid of me’
By LUKE TRESS9 March 2024, 4:05 am
New York Jewish Week via JTA — Shai Davidai, an Israeli assistant professor at Columbia University’s business school, has gained prominence over the past five months for criticizing the university’s response to campus antisemitism. Now, he says the university has placed him under investigation.
Davidai declined to comment on the details of the investigation, but said it was being carried out by the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action, which responds to allegations of harassment and discrimination on campus.
Davidai broke into public view just weeks after Hamas’s October 7 invasion of Israel triggered widespread anti-Israel protests on college campuses, including at Columbia, when a video of an impassioned speech he gave went viral. Since then, he has emerged as a leading voice criticizing universities for permitting anti-Israel sentiment to flourish and bleed into antisemitism.
Speaking to the New York Jewish Week on Friday, he rejected the idea that he has publicly targeted individual students and protected groups, saying his condemnations are of student organizations.
“Nothing I have done in my advocacy in the past five months has been about any protected class,” he said.
“Unless they want to claim that supporting terrorism is a protected class, there’s no grounds for this investigation.”
The New York law firm Kasowitz Benson Torres confirmed that it was representing Davidai in the case and that Columbia was investigating him. The university said it could not comment on personnel matters.
“As a general matter, if the University receives a formal complaint, it will review and consider the complaint under established processes,” a spokesperson told the New York Jewish Week.
Davidai said he intends to fully respect the investigation and cooperate with investigators. But he compared the investigation to the late 19th-century Dreyfus Affair, an infamous antisemitic incident in which a French Jewish officer was falsely accused and convicted of treason.
“I wanted to make it public,” he said. “I really do believe that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and Columbia needs to be clear that many people are invested in this investigation, and they can’t just create some sort of Dreyfus trial in order to get rid of me.”
The investigation of one of the most outspoken critics of Columbia’s response to antisemitism comes as the university has faced blowback for its approach to activism and bigotry surrounding the Israel-Hamas war. It is one of several elite colleges to face scrutiny from students, faculty, donors and government officials over its handling of antisemitism since Hamas’s October 7 invasion of Israel, when the Gaza-governing terror group slaughtered 1,200 people in southern Israel, mostly civilians massacred amid brutal atrocities, and abducted 253 to Gaza — where 130 are still held.
At Columbia, an Israeli student was allegedly assaulted on campus in October, and later in the fall, the school suspended two anti-Zionist student groups for unauthorized protests. Now, the university is facing investigations by Congress and the Biden administration as well as lawsuits from Jewish students. This week, a report from the school’s antisemitism task force said that Jewish students were experiencing “isolation and pain.”
On Friday, Davidai publicly announced the investigation on social media, adding that he has repeatedly advocated for Palestinian rights in public statements.
Davidai was an early critic of Columbia’s approach to anti-Israel protests after October 7. In the October speech that went viral, Davidai condemned the university for allowing “pro-terror” student demonstrations and told parents that their children on Ivy League campuses were not safe.
“I want you to know one thing: We cannot protect your child,” he said at an outdoor vigil less than two weeks after the Hamas attack. “I’m speaking to you as a dad, and I want you to know, we cannot protect your children from pro-terror student organizations, because the president of Columbia University will not speak out against pro-terror student organizations.”
His advocacy for Jews and Israelis has made him a target on campus and beyond. Last month, a group of graduate student members of the Society of Personality and Social Psychology, an academic association of which Davidai is also a member, demanded that the society sanction him.
The signatories claimed that he “intentionally targeted” vulnerable students, citing online posts in which he called for the continued suspension of the pro-Palestinian groups Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace. In one post, above video of an unsanctioned protest, he wrote, “It’s time for expulsions.”
Davidai said he does not speak out against individual students or groups of people but against student organizations.
Davidai’s activism has taken aim at protests where student groups have chanted “globalize the intifada” and “from the river to the sea,” slogans that Israel advocates and antisemitism watchdogs view as calls to violence. Student organizations have also condemned “Zionists” on campus. Columbia student groups have collaborated with the group Within Our Lifetime, New York’s most active and visible pro-Palestinian organization, which endorsed the October 7 attack and whose leadership has explicitly supported Hamas, an Islamist terror group avowedly seeking to destroy Israel.
He and his wife, the Israeli writer and translator Yardenne Greenspan, have also said that they’ve faced adversity because of their activism outside of Columbia. They wrote in a Tablet essay last month that they have lost friends and faced threats since October 7, even as they favor policies that would be considered squarely left-wing in Israel, including opposition of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. “For our friends, our refusal to apologize for Israel’s existence simply deemed us intolerable,” they wrote.
Davidai still does not believe the university is taking campus antisemitism seriously. He applauded the antisemitism task force for its report but said he does not think it will be effective. He feels that the body is a cover for the administration to avoid taking concrete steps to protect Jewish students and has declined to speak with it.
“I see the university as using the task force as a fig leaf for lack of action and I refuse to be that,” he said. “I refuse to make kosher the university’s lack of action.
======================================
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/11/business/columbia-university-congress-antisemitism-hearing/index.html
Columbia University leaders to get grilled by Congress at antisemitism hearing
Matt Egan By Matt Egan, CNN
Updated 9:14 AM EDT, Tue March 12, 2024New YorkCNN —
The president and board chairs of Columbia University have agreed to testify next month at a Congressional hearing on campus antisemitism.
The House Education and Workforce Committee announced Monday it will hold a hearing on April 17 featuring Columbia President Minouche Shafik and the two co-chairs of the board of trustees: Claire Shipman and David Greenwald.
Shafik had been invited to testify at the disastrous December hearing where the presidents of Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Pennsylvania struggled to answer questions about whether calls for the genocide of Jews would violate school policies. The Columbia president was unable to attend in December due to long-scheduled travel, according to university spokesperson Samantha Slater.
Within weeks, the leaders of both Harvard and Penn had quit amid firestorms of controversy.
Last month, the House Education Committee widened its campus antisemitism investigation to include Columbia and demanded the Ivy League school turn over a wide range of documents to aid that probe.
“Some of the worst cases of antisemitic assaults, harassment, and vandalism on campus have occurred at Columbia University,” said Rep. Virginia Foxx, the Republican chairwoman of the committee, in a statement. “Due to the severe and pervasive nature of these cases, and the Columbia administration’s failure to enforce its own policies to protect Jewish students, the Committee must hear from Columbia’s leadership in person to learn how the school is addressing antisemitism on its campus.”
At a roundtable event held by the committee earlier this month, Eden Yadegar, a junior at Columbia University, described how Jewish students were attacked by people wielding sticks outside of the university library.
“We have been attacked by sticks outside our library. We have been attacked by angry mobs and we have been threatened to ‘Keep f—ing running,’” said Yadegar, who is the president of Students Supporting Israel at Columbia University
Columbia has said that antisemitism is “antithetical” to the university’s values.
“Columbia is committed to combating antisemitism and we welcome the opportunity to discuss our work to protect and support Jewish students and keep our community safe,” Slater, the Columbia spokesperson, told CNN in a statement on Monday.
In November, the Department of Education launched an investigation into Columbia and other universities after getting complaints about alleged incidents of antisemitism and Islamophobia.
Last fall, a Columbia student who was hanging posters on campus in support of Israel was assaulted. Days later, a mobile “doxxing” billboard drove outside the entrance of Columbia displaying the names and faces of students who a conservative nonprofit said were linked to a statement blaming Israel for the Hamas terror attack.
Shai Davidai, an assistant professor at the Columbia Business School, called Shafik a “coward” in a fiery speech last year criticizing the university president for failing to quiet “pro-terror” voices at the school.
==========================================
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT
has opened an investigation into my advocacy for the Jewish and Israeli students, faculty, and staff at the university.
This is a clear act of retaliation and an attempt to silence me. If you want to know more, read my statement below
=========================================
Dear President Shafik, Senior Vice President Rosberg, and General Counsel Rosan,
I write with great concern over the looming expiration of the November 10 suspension of student groups “Students for Justice in Palestine” (SJP) and “Jewish Voice for Peace” (JVP). These groups’ re-admission to campus should be barred because (1) they have openly violated their suspension order by continuously operating on campus during the time of their suspension through alignments with other student groups that “cover” for them and do their bidding; and (2) these groups are under the direction of two national organizations with ties to designated terrorist organizations and they therefore present an enormous danger to the Columbia community and violate the material support prohibitions of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. § 2339a.
I. SJP and JVP Violated The Suspension Order and Must Not be Reinstated
In the statement suspending SJP and JVP from Columbia’s campus, Senior Vice President Gerald Rosberg conditioned the lifting of these groups’ suspension upon “demonstrating a commitment to compliance with University policies.” Not only has SJP and JVP failed to demonstrate such commitment, they have openly flaunted their ability to violate the suspension with impunity.
Before addressing SJP’s violation of the suspension, it is important to understand a little about its organizational structure. SJP is a chapter organization of a larger entity, National SJP. Both National SJP and also the American Muslims for Palestine (AMP) have outreach personnel which, as described on the AMP website, ”work in broad-based coalitions and support campus activism through Students for Justice in Palestine.” AMP’s Chairman is a co-founder of SJP, and AMP’s Director of Outreach, Taher Herzallah, is tasked with coordinating and guiding SJP chapters nationwide. National SJP’s website describes itself as providing “support to about 200 SJP chapters on university and college campuses.”
On or about December 7, soon after Columbia suspended SJP and JVP, National SJP conducted a workshop where one of the speakers was a Columbia student who introduced herself as “Maryam, an organizer of Columbia SJP and Columbia University Apartheid Divest.” She listed her title as “Maryam, Columbia SJP.” In a December 19, 2023 opinion piece by Maryam Alwan in the Columbia Spectator, the author of the piece identifies herself as an “SJP organizer.”
At the National SJP workshop, speaker Maryam stated:
“The Columbia University Apartheid Divest [CUAD] Coalition became entirely inactive in 2020 and it was revitalized once SJP and JVP were recently suspended last month.” https://twitter.com/thestustustudio/status/1732985036805161154.
“We had a protest, the first protest after the suspension of SJP and JVP, that was hosted by another organization on campus because we can’t host protests anymore.” https://twitter.com/thestustustudio/status/1732985038663274825.
Thus, the leader of SJP explains that SJP revitalized a dormant shell organization, CUAD Coalition, to stand in the shoes of SJP and do its bidding to get around the suspension order. The National SJP workshop included a panelist teaching campus chapters to develop a coalition explicitly for the purpose of evading University suspension orders and allowing SJP chapters to continue their operations after being suspended. https://twitter.com/thestustustudio/status/1733661122526339206?s=20. And Maryam indicates that Columbia SJP followed that teaching to the letter: she openly touts that the very first protest after SJP’s suspension was hosted by CUAD Coalition “because we can’t host protests anymore.”
While Maryam identified herself at the National SJP workshop as a leader of SJP at Columbia, she also introduced herself as a leadership figure of CUAD Coalition – CUAD Coalition being the organization to host protests after SJP’s suspension. As Maryam proceeded to explain the organizational structure of CUAD Coalition, she stopped herself and commented that “I don’t want to say too much, because I probably shouldn’t expose the current organizational structure.” https://twitter.com/thestustustudio/status/1732985047081226315. Despite Maryam’s reticence to reveal the organizational structure, other CUAD Coalition members have been candid that the CUAD Coalition is organized with an “internal structure whereby SJP, JVP, and a committee of impacted Palestinian students are at the top.” See, Columbia Spectator, November 29, “Over 80 Student Groups Form Coalition” (stating that “CUAD Coalition was formalized after the University suspended SJP and JVP”).
With Maryam wearing one hat as the leader of Columbia SJP, and another hat as a leader of CUAD Coalition, coupled with her unwillingness to “expose” the organizational structures of each, and her colleagues’ admission that SJP and JVP run the coalition, there is but one conclusion to be reached: SJP and JVP are the master puppeteers of CUAD Coalition, which acts as a cover for SJP. As Maryam openly acknowledged, “SJP can’t host protests anymore” and this new arrangement is a mechanism for violating the suspension order with impunity. The noncompliance should not be countenanced, and reinstatement of SJP and JVP should be denied on this basis.
II. SJP and JVP Should be Suspended Because of the Ties to Designated Terror Organizations
While SJP’s failure to comply with the suspension order is disabling in and of itself, in addition to their open violation of this reinstatement condition of compliance, SJP’s open support of terrorism, and receipt of funds from terrorist organizations, is an equally compelling and more than adequate basis to continue their suspension.
In particular, Maryam stated at the December 7 National SJP workshop that she “insist[s] on using “from the river to the sea” in our protests. This slogan was called out by the United States Congress (a month before Maryam’s remarks at the National SJP workshop) as an explicit call for the genocide of the Jewish people. Alarmingly, through Maryam, SJP continues — in the face of federal censure stemming from the use of this term and acknowledgement of it as a call for genocide – to “insist” on its use on Columbia’s campus, placing every Jewish student in danger and mortal fear. No group should be permitted on campus that, upon hearing our federal government define a slogan as a genocide call, states they insist on the entitlement to instill fear in fellow students by the open and notorious use of the phrase.
Furthermore, SJP’s benefactor organization, AMP, touts that it provides to the SJP chapters that it supports through campus activism “free materials, information, speakers, infrastructure and grants.” AMP’s Executive Director, Osama Abuirshaid, is linked to the Hamas military wing (Izz ad-Din al-Qassam) and appears on its website, and has ties to Hamas’ predecessor American support organizations, the Holy Land Foundation and the Palestine Committee, which were disbanded in the U.S. for supporting Hamas. Given these clear linkages between AMP and Hamas, this amounts to Columbia’s SJP chapter pursuing the agenda of AMP (and through AMP, pursuing the agenda of Hamas), lending material support to achieve the aims of these terrorist groups in violation of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. § 2339a.
Beyond SJP’s ties to Hamas through AMP and National SJP, Maryam stated at the National SJP workshop that SJP enjoys the services of a dedicated legal team through Palestine Legal. Palestine Legal put on a joint “Law Enforcement Contact and Protesting” seminar with CUNY in mid-November. The panelists directed attendees to consult the “Know Your Rights” materials on CUNY Legal’s website, which caution attendees with guidance when considering “joining or supporting an organization or individual that the government has designated as terrorist.” That the legal advisors to Columbia SJP anticipate the need to guide club members about issues to consider when being invited to join terrorist organizations is beyond frightening.
Lastly, given the coordination role of National SJP in directing its affiliate campus chapters, it is telling that sister SJP chapters at other universities have already begun to express support for the Houthis in urging the United States to refrain from self-defense in that conflict. As the Biden administration considers redesignating the Houthis as a terrorist organization after a short de-listing, SJP’s consistent alignment with terror groups Hamas, AMP and now the Houthis, is alarming. Coupled with Columbia SJP’s ties with Hamas and AMP, suspending this terror group from campus is necessary to maintain proper safety measures and responsibly manage Columbia’s risk profile. If a terror act is committed upon a community member by an SJP-aligned actor in the face of this overwhelming collection of terror-affiliations, the University’s risk exposure would be extraordinary.
III. JVP acts in Partnership with SJP and should Similarly be Suspended
While I am unaware of specific ties among JVP and other terrorist organizations, JVP stands in partnership with SJP (see, Columbia Spectator, December 19, 2023 opinion piece by Maryam Alwan, identifying the two groups as being in a horizontal alliance). As partners answerable for one another’s actions under the law, JVP is imbued with all of the actions attributable to SVP. This, apart from JVP’s open noncompliance with the suspension order, requires JVP’s continued suspension for all of the reasons stated in Section II, above.
Summary
In summary, SJP and JVP have openly violated the November 10 suspension order and, as such, cannot be reinstated, because compliance with University policies is a precondition to reinstatement. Further, the provision of material support to AMP and Hamas places the entire community and risk and violates our country’s terrorism laws, and for this reason as well, requires suspension of these groups.
We need to know your plan for maintaining safety, and in particular safety of Jews, on campus. Please direct your response to Gerard Filitti, gerard@thelawfareproject.org before Friday, January 19.
Sincerely,
#EndJewHatred
#EndJewHatred is a non-partisan international grassroots civil rights movement that unites ordinary people, activists, and organizations from around the world who support the cause that defines the movement: to end Jew-hatred in our lifetime.
================================================================
DEFEND DAVIDAI: Demand that Columbia End its Persecution of Jewish Professor Shai Davidai
Started
March 11, 2024Sign this petition
Why this petition matters
Started by We Are Tov !!!
If Shai Can’t Speak, How Can I?
We, the undersigned, are deeply troubled by the baseless investigation initiated by Columbia University against Assistant Professor Shai Davidai at Columbia’s Business School. He has courageously spoken out against the hostile environment that Jewish and Israeli individuals face on Columbia’s campus.
Since October 7th, Shai has been a vocal advocate for Jewish students’ safety and rights. Yet, instead of supporting him and the students he represents, Columbia’s leadership has turned a blind eye to antisemitism and failed to provide a safe environment for Jews on campus. Now, in a blatant act of retaliation, Columbia has launched an internal investigation against Shai, aiming to silence him for speaking out against systemic antisemitism and the university’s failure to address it.
Over the past five months, Jewish students at Columbia have been locking themselves in their dorm rooms for fear of being assaulted. They have been spat on, attacked, bullied, and vilified. And they have been harassed by pro-terror student organizations that justify, excuse, and celebrate the massacre of Jews while chanting for their eradication “by any means necessary.” These organizations – which have been suspended due to their hate-filled rhetoric – continue to hold unauthorized pro-terror rallies on campus without any fear of disciplinary action. Columbia refuses to enforce the terms of their suspension but instead pursues this baseless investigation into Shai.
Shai’s commitment to holding Columbia to account for their actions has resulted in death threats. He is relentlessly targeted on social media (including by Columbia students and faculty). He – out of fear of being assaulted – avoids spending time on campus. And now, in the ultimate act of betrayal, he is being persecuted by Columbia’s leadership, which is retaliating against him with a sham investigation based on meritless “complaints.”
Shai should be applauded for his actions – not punished. His refusal to remain silent has empowered students to speak out against antisemitism on campuses everywhere.
By silencing Shai, Columbia is effectively silencing Jewish students everywhere. After all, if a respected professor cannot speak out against antisemitism without facing retribution, how can a student be expected to do so?
OUR DEMANDS:
Drop the Investigation: We demand that Columbia University immediately drop its internal investigation against Professor Davidai.
Create a Safe Environment: Columbia’s leadership must take proactive steps to create a safer and more inclusive environment for Jewish students and faculty. This includes:
- Punishing and enforcing sanctions against organizations that harass and bully Jewish students.
- Working with law enforcement and aiding in the prosecution of individuals who commit hate crimes against Jewish individuals.
- Encouraging Jewish students to report harassment without fear of reprisal.
- Implementing increased safety and security measures for Jewish students and organizations.
JOIN US:
We urge fellow college students, faculty, parents, alumni, and concerned community members everywhere to join us in signing this petition in support of Professor Davidai and the broader Jewish community at Columbia University. Together, we can send a powerful message that antisemitism will not be tolerated on our campuses and that the voices of Jewish students and faculty must be heard and respected – and never silenced.
Professor Davidai has issued a statement, you can read it here.
==============================================================
https://jewishjournal.com/news/united-states/369048/columbia-prof-shai-davidai-university-president-has-to-go/
Columbia Prof Shai Davidai: University President “Has to Go” Calls Minouche Shafik a “coward” for not denouncing pro-terrorist groups on campus.
Aaron Bandler
March 7, 2024
Shai Davidai, a Jewish Israeli assistant professor of management at the Columbia University Business School, told the Journal in an exclusive interview that it is time for Columbia President Minouche Shafik to leave her position over the university’s failure to adequately address antisemitism on campus.
Davidai spoke to the Journal on Saturday following the “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI): Challenges and Opportunities” session he co-led during the StandWithUs Israel in Focus International Conference at the Hilton Los Angeles Airport hotel. The bespectacled, lanky professor went viral on social media in October after he excoriated Shafik for being a “coward” in failing to denounce “pro-terror student organizations” on campus. Davidai, who describes himself as a “left-leaning liberal,” has since become an outspoken figure in fighting against antisemitism and terror on campus.
“Up until a few weeks ago, I was very, very optimistic or naïve that the current administration will step up and do something,” Davidai told the Journal. “They haven’t done anything for five months. They haven’t commented on two lawsuits and a congressional investigation. It’s clear they don’t want to — I thought that they can’t, they just don’t want. So, I think the president has to go. The provost is now changing, so hopefully we’ll get a better one. The entire board of trustees needs to go. I say: step up or step away.”
Since that October video went viral, “life has been very difficult,” Davidai said. “When I go into the office, almost no one speaks with me. Even if they agree with what I’m doing, it’s like a hot potato, they don’t want to touch it … it’s been very isolating.” He also accused the university of “trying to silence me”; Davidai couldn’t comment on some of the specifics, but he did say that “informally I’ve had several people from the administration come and try to dissuade me from speaking up … They see the fact that donors are pulling out money, that students don’t want to register for school, as if it’s something that has to do with me rather than the problem,” he alleged. “I keep telling them, ‘I am pointing out the problem and you are cutting off the finger rather than dealing with the problem.’”
And online, “I get a lot of hate mail,” Davidai claimed. “I get a lot of hatred remarks, people have published my address … my reputation has been dragged through the mud. And at the same time, you know you’re doing something right if people are attacking your character rather than the arguments.”
Despite these challenges, it has also “been a very meaningful time” for Davidai. “I come to events like this, and see how many Jewish and Zionist students and faculty are really suffering and dealing with all these issues,” he said. “Just being able to add one more voice to the fight has been very helpful.”
Davidai thinks his argument “is very simple”: No antisemitism on campus, no support for terror on campus, and hold administrations accountable for not taking action on these fronts. “Those are basically the things that I’ve been saying, and they are irrefutable,” the Columbia professor said.
How well has Columbia addressed antisemitism since Davidai started speaking out? “Poorly,” Davidai told the Journal. “They have not done anything of substance.” The university did launch a task force to combat antisemitism, and while Davidai respects what the task force is doing, “they haven’t created any actionable plan yet.” On Monday, the task force released a report highlighting antisemitism at Columbia — particularly during protests — and a series of recommendations to better regulate protests; Shafik said in a statement she welcomed the task force’s report. But Davidai told The Times of Israel that the report deals “with the symptom and not the root cause” and that the university isn’t enforcing its current policies.
“The university has allowed more and more of these pro-Hamas protests to happen on campus, even when they are unauthorized, even when they go against the rules of the university,” Davidai told the Journal. The university has suspended the campus Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) chapters, but have reportedly continued to hold protests on campus.
“They have been holding on average a protest a week, sometimes two or three protests a week,” he continued. “In those protests they use chants that incite violence, which the university has said has gone against the code of the school and the university knows exactly who the organizers are. They know the people shouting at the bullhorns. They have faculty showing up to these unauthorized protests and the university has said nothing about this. It’s just horrific, and every day the bar gets lowered.”
He mentioned a recent article that reported there is a visiting professor at the university’s Middle Eastern Institute who “identifies with Hamas.” “He has called for not just an armed resistance in Israel but armed resistance in the U.S. to, in his words, to ‘liberate the armed turtle island,’” Davidai said, explaining that “turtle island” is a reference to the U.S. and Canada. “Those are the kinds of professors that are at the university. And again, we have free speech … but that doesn’t mean that the university can’t come out and condemn.”
Davidai urged the university to call out the antisemites and those breaking the rules by name and make it clear that such people do not reflect the views of the university. “As long as the university doesn’t do that, they’re basically saying, ‘these people are speaking for our university,’” he said.
When Students Supporting Israel held a rally on campus, it was peaceful, all the rules were followed and rallygoers waved American flags in addition to Israeli flags, Davidai said. “When you look at the pro-Hamas rally, there was just Palestinian flags and Houthi flags … you get a sense of the kind of people you’re dealing with.”
Asked how Jewish students are feeling about the climate campus, Davidai replied that some “feel extremely uncomfortable walking around with their yarmulke” since “we had a student attacked for wearing a yarmulke.” Others are uncomfortable in class because their classmates will accuse them of being “genocidal” as their professors stand idly by. And some students “feel like they are not getting the education they deserve,” Davidai said. “They can’t sit in the library and study when there are people chanting antisemitic chants right outside.”
At the heart of these hostile campus climates at Columbia and elsewhere is an “anti-American sentiment,” Davidai argued. “These are students that have been radicalized by extremist professors, ideologues — they are not academics, they are ideologues — that are pushing an indoctrination of anti-American sentiment. This is why they refer to the U.S. as an ‘occupied territory.’ This is why they support the Houthis who are shooting missiles at American ships. This is why they haven’t said a word about the U.S. civilians that were held hostage by Gaza. They don’t care about these values of life and liberty.”
He added that while he’s “totally fine with the idea that people are shouting to ‘Free Palestine’ in the sense that a Palestinian state will have its own self-determination — I am in support of a Palestinian state — but that shouldn’t come at the life and liberty of the Jewish people in the Israeli state. This is why it’s an issue of life and liberty. This is why you see American flags in the pro-Israel protests. This is why you see American flags in the ‘Release the Hostages’ rallies. This is why you never see even one American flag at the pro-Hamas protest and when you see them, they’re being burned down.”
Davidai also pointed out that Columbia has also been hit with two lawsuits accusing the university of failing to address antisemitism on campus and is being investigated by Congress on the matter and they refuse to comment on any of this. “It’s as if the president of the university thinks if she says nothing, this will go away,” said Davidai. “Kind of like if my child does something wrong and tries to hide it, and my son knows that just by hiding something doesn’t make it go away and we will find out.”
Overall, Davidai thinks that antisemitism has become “endemic” and “institutionalized” at Columbia.
“We need to treat this like any other prejudice,” he said. “I won’t accept anti-Black prejudice, I won’t accept sexism or any kind of racism or homophobia, I won’t accept anti-Arab sentiment and I won’t accept Islamophobia. I also won’t accept antisemitism. It’s not that big of an ask. Decent people would have already acted.” However, Davidai does “believe in second or third chances” and in his view, the university leadership still has a chance to redeem themselves with meaningful action.
He mentioned during his StandWithUs conference session that part of the solution involves universities adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. Davidai added to the Journal that the solution also involves Shafik condemning Hamas, as she hasn’t mentioned the terror organization once in a public statement. He also called for “a permanent ban” of organizations that support Hamas. “Antisemitic organizations that support terror should not have a place on campus,” he said. “Very simple. And if they keep organizing, even they’re banned or suspended, the organizers should have consequences.”
Davidai has found that when he’s discussing the issue of the Israel-Hamas war and the campus climate to Americans who may not fully understand what is going on, framing it as a life and liberty issue has been “eye-opening” for them. “You’d expect this kind of ideas to come from the right, and I’m saying no, I am a complete leftist and you don’t have to agree with me on my political views, but our values are the same and our values are that we agree on the basic fundamentals on what this country stands for, what Israel stands for, what democracy stands for,” said Davidai, “and once we realize that, yes, we have our political differences, but the values are the same and that’s what we should all be fighting for.”
He added that his message for “middle America” is that “this is not Israel’s war, this is not the Jewish war, this is America’s war … this is the war on terror, it just showed up on U.S. campuses now.”
A university spokesperson told the Journal, “As President Shafik and the administration have consistently made clear that antisemitism is antithetical to Columbia’s values. We are using every available tool to keep our community safe and that includes protecting our Jewish students from antisemitic discrimination or harassment. Maintaining a safe, civil, inclusive and respectful campus environment is always a core priority for the university administration and never more so than at present.”
==========================================================
Society of Personality and Social Psychology students submit complaint calling to sanction Business School professor Shai Davidai
The group of graduate students called Davidai’s actions “a blatant dereliction of duty,” which would violate the SPSP Code of Conduct & Ethics.
The letter states that Davidai, a member of the Society of Personality and Social Psychology, has targeted individuals, specifically Palestinian students.BY JOSEPH ZULOAGA • FEBRUARY 14, 2024 AT 5:36 AM
A group of social psychology graduate students from the Society of Personality and Social Psychology sent a letter on Feb. 7 to the academic society’s executive committee calling to sanction Shai Davidai, assistant professor in the management division at the Business School.
The letter states that Davidai, a member of SPSP, “has intentionally targeted and put vulnerable students from multiply marginalized racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds at risk through his actions.”
The letter was authored by a group of students under the name “SPSP Graduate Students Against Racism” and submitted through a “representative,” as the group was comprised of individuals who are “from racially minoritized backgrounds, pro-Palestinian, and/or themselves Palestinian” and did not feel “safe disclosing [their] identities given Davidai’s targeting of individuals—especially Palestinians and students of color—who have expressed similar views.”
In an interview with Spectator, Davidai stated that his initial reaction was one of “sadness,” as he believes that academia is not about coming after someone’s reputation because of disagreements.
“Academia is about open exchange of ideas, even if you disagree or disagree with them, as long as we keep some boundary conditions, which is incitement for violence, targeting an entire person or people for specific things like that,” Davidai said.
A Business School spokesperson wrote in a statement to Spectator that the school “closely reviews any concerns over student safety.”
“Our administration is dedicated to upholding University rules and policies, and we work to ensure a safe and welcoming learning environment for every member of our community,” the spokesperson wrote.
The students in the letter called for the SPSP Executive Committee to “1) open a formal investigation into Dr. Davidai’s behavior; and 2) take swift and direct action to sanction Dr. Davidai for violating several tenets of the SPSP Code of Conduct & Ethics … which may include measures such as ‘restriction on attending future events, removal from membership, and forfeiture of previous awards or honors’ as outlined in SPSP’s Code of Conduct & Ethics.”
The letter cites seven incidents of Davidai’s social media activity from Oct. 13, 2023 to Jan. 20, 2024 concerning pro-Palestinian campus protests, including screenshots of Instagram posts, emails, and posts on X. The letter states that these posts “have violated SPSP’s Code of Conduct with respect to expected and prohibited behavior from SPSP members.”
Citing a Dec. 11, 2023 tweet, the letter states that Davidai called for the expulsion of Columbia students and that he “misrepresent[ed] pro-Palestinian protests as calls for genocide.”
“By calling for peaceful and non-violent student protestors to be expelled and misrepresenting their slogans as calls for genocide (e.g., equating ‘intifada’ with calls for genocide of Jews), Dr. Davidai put vulnerable students at risk of violence from bad faith actors, and encouraged serious administrative action from the university,” the letter reads. “It is important to note here that many of these student protestors have lost multiple family members in the ongoing military operation in Gaza, and are grieving.”
The letter also cites a Jan. 16 tweet, in which Davidai issued “another ‘call to action’ for his followers to write to various Columbia administrators, including University President Minouche Shafik, to suspend student groups [Students for Justice in Palestine] and [Jewish Voice for Peace]. The tweet included a link to a pre-prepared email script which called for the suspension of SJP and JVP student organizations.”
The letter states that in the same Jan. 16 tweet, Davidai made in an email “serious and spurious allegations against an individual Muslim woman student at Columbia, putting a student from an already vulnerable group at elevated risk, and contained links to tweets which doxxed and smeared this student on social media.”
“I have never doxxed a Columbia student, I have never named a Columbia student, I have never targeted a Columbia student,” Davidai said.
He added that he has posted videos taken in public space about public comments in which students participated.
Conservative media group Accuracy in Media deployed “doxxing trucks” to Columbia’s Morningside campus on Oct. 25, 2023, displaying the names and faces of affiliates allegedly involved in student groups who signed onto an pro-Palestinian student statement released on Oct. 12, 2023, under the words “Columbia’s Leading Antisemites.” The truck recirculated on the Morningside campus several times following its initial appearance.
“Most of the students in these protests are good people … [but] they have been hijacked by the organizers of SJP, JVP, and [Columbia University Apartheid Divest],” Davidai said, adding that he feels bad for the students who are uninvolved because “their entire year is being disrupted by a small radical group that doesn’t care about education … they care about revolution.”
The University established a “Doxing Resource Group,” on Nov. 1 which aims to centralize resources for students who have been doxxed and provide free legal advice and privacy scrubbing services.
The letter states that in a Jan. 17 tweet, Davidai described Columbia students as “pro-terror,” with the authors of the letter writing that they were “highly concerned that this … pattern of behavior will only work to endanger students at Columbia and those who wish to express their support for Palestine and Palestinians at the SPSP conference.”
The authors of the letter called these violations “a threat to the safety and inclusivity of the SPSP community both within and beyond formal Society events, particularly for individuals of Muslim and Arab backgrounds, and those who advocate for Palestinian liberation, who are already experiencing heightened vulnerability.”
Spectator spoke to over a dozen Palestinian and pro-Palestinian students in November 2023 who reported harassment, doxxing, and receiving threats in the weeks following Oct. 7 and several protests on campus.
“We hope that the SPSP Executive Committee will demonstrate the leadership necessary in this crucial moment to protect the more vulnerable members of our Society, and hold accountable individuals whose actions render unsafe the inclusive space that SPSP strives to cultivate,” the letter states.
Staff Writer Joseph Zuloaga can be contacted at joseph.zuloaga@columbiaspectator.com.Follow him on X @josephzuloaga.
=========================================================
https://president.columbia.edu/content/report-1-task-force-antisemitism
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK
Office of the President
Report #1: Task Force on Antisemitism
Columbia University’s Rules on Demonstrations (1)
March 2024
(1) This report reflects the research and analysis of members of the Task Force’s rules working group: David M. Schizer (Co-Chair, Law School), who drafted the report, as well as R. Glenn Hubbard (Business School), Magda Schaler-Haynes (Mailman School of Public Health), Matthew C. Waxman (Law School), and Gil Zussman (Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science). Extensive input also was provided by the other members of the Task Force: Clémence Boulouque (Department of Religion), Peter Coleman (Affiliate Co-Chair, Teachers College), Jeremy A. Dauber (Department of Germanic Languages), Ester Fuchs (Co-Chair, SIPA), Rebecca Kobrin (Department of History), Jennifer Lee (Department of Sociology), Nicholas Lemann (Co-Chair, Journalism School), Lisa Rosen-Metsch (General Studies), Nir Uriel (Columbia University Irving Medical Center), and Deborah Valenze (Affiliate Co-Chair, Barnard College).
On November 1, 2023, Presidents Minouche Shafik (Columbia University), Laura Rosenbury (Barnard College), and Thomas Bailey (Teachers College) announced the formation of a Task Force on Antisemitism (“the Task Force”) “as part of a commitment to ensuring that our campuses are safe, welcoming, and inclusive for Jewish students, faculty, and staff, and all of us.” (2)
The Task Force is part of a broader series of campus-wide initiatives “to foster a community,” as President Shafik put it, “where debates and disagreements are rooted in academic rigor and civil discourse.” Another product of this “our community, our values” initiative is a pair of new interim policies for safe demonstrations (the “Interim Demonstration Policies”) from Columbia University (“the University”) and Barnard College, which were issued on February 19 and 20th, respectively. The Task Force was pleased to provide input on these policies and, as discussed below, we strongly endorse them.
In the course of its work, the Task Force has heard of the isolation and pain many Jewish and Israeli Columbia affiliates (3) have experienced in recent months. While mourning Hamas’s unspeakable atrocities on October 7, some Jewish and Israeli Columbia affiliates have been the object of racist epithets and graffiti, antisemitic tropes, and confrontational and unwelcome questions, while others have found their participation in some student groups that have nothing to do with politics to be increasingly uncomfortable. Israeli Columbia affiliates have been criticized and stereotyped for serving in the military, something most Israelis are required to do. Some Jewish students have felt isolated in supporting Israel, while others have felt isolated in criticizing Israel. While there is strong support among Jewish and Israeli Columbia affiliates for the right to protest, as well as widespread heartbreak about the tragic loss of civilian life in Gaza, many have heard chants at protests like “Globalize the Intifada” and “Death to the Zionist State” as calls for violence against them and their families.
Across Columbia University, there also have been repeated violations of the rules on protests. Although peaceful demonstrations are permitted at Columbia and Barnard–and, indeed, are an indispensable element of civic life in a free society–the University has rules to keep them from interfering with our academic mission. Unfortunately, these rules often have been violated in recent months. Protesters have disrupted classes and events, taken over spaces in academic buildings, held unauthorized demonstrations, and used ugly language to berate individuals who were filming these protests or just walking by. There also have been reports of physical harm to students, including Columbia affiliates who were protesting against Hamas and Columbia affiliates who were protesting against Israel. Needless to say, the University must guarantee the physical safety of all Columbia affiliates, and a welcoming environment for everyone is essential.
In the coming months, the Task Force will issue a series of reports, examining various aspects of this difficult situation. We are conducting research on the experiences and views of members of the Columbia community and are analyzing a range of university policies and practices. This first report considers Columbia’s rules on demonstrations. (4) We focus on Columbia’s rules, since our work on Barnard and Teachers Colleges’ rules is still at an early stage. (5)
Even though our charge is antisemitism, we know that Jews and Israelis are not the only ones targeted in this difficult time. Heartbreak, fear, and loss are widely shared experiences both on and off campus. Although our report focuses on antisemitism, our recommendations can also bolster efforts to combat Islamophobia, anti-Arab racism, and other types of bigotry. We condemn all these toxic forms of hate and look forward to working with colleagues, and partnering on initiatives, to counter it across the University. Together, we must strengthen the fabric of our University community for all.
Footnotes
(2) Announcing Task Force on Antisemitism, Nov. 1, 2023.
(3) The phrase “Columbia affiliate” in this report includes students, faculty, and staff of Columbia University (including Columbia University Medical Center), Barnard College and Teachers College.
(4) Columbia University defines “demonstrations” as “a group of people coming together in an event of public expression on campus.” See the Interim University Policy for Safe Demonstrations.
(5) Teachers College and Barnard College are affiliates of Columbia University and separate 501(c)(3) entities.
I. Executive Summary
The University’s rules on demonstrations must accomplish three critical goals: first, safeguarding every Columbia affiliate’s right to protest, regardless of their viewpoint; second, ensuring that protests do not interfere with the rights of other Columbia affiliates to speak, teach, research, and learn; and, third, combating discrimination and harassment, including antisemitic harassment.
To protect every Columbia affiliate’s right to protest, while also ensuring that protests do not interfere with the free speech rights and academic freedom of others, the University must regulate the timing and location of protests. We support a “speaker’s corner” approach that permits protests in designated areas like the Sundial, South Lawn, and Futter Field, but not in academic buildings, libraries, dining halls, or dormitories. Every Columbia affiliate should have the right to protest in these designated areas, regardless of their cause or viewpoint. This is the approach of the new Interim Demonstrations Policies, and we consider them a major step forward. We also recommend clearer limits on the use of noise amplification and banners, as well as a minimum distance between competing protests.
Although we generally agree with the language of the University’s rules, we have serious concerns about their enforcement. The University generally has not tried to stop violations as they have occurred, and instead has focused on imposing discipline after the fact. The priority during protests has been to avoid violence and escalation. In our view, avoiding violence is necessary, but not sufficient. The University also needs to keep protests from interfering with the rights of others to speak, teach, research, and learn. So the University should do more to stop unauthorized protests as they occur, using approaches that are effective but not confrontational. For example, if protesters gather in an academic building, they should be told that they are violating the rules and given the opportunity to leave within a specified period of time (e.g., ten minutes). Those who remain should be required to show IDs and given a warning, followed by discipline for subsequent violations.
In addition to doing more to stop rule violations as they occur, the University needs to be more effective at investigating and enforcing violations after the fact. We recommend a simpler process for filing complaints, more flexible deadlines for adjudicating them, more effective use of informal processes, and aggregate reporting on the results. Unlike most other universities, Columbia uses a separate disciplinary process for rules on protests, which is coordinated by the University Senate. Since this process has rarely been used, robust efforts are needed to make sure it works, including rigorous training, safeguards to ensure consistent treatment, and periodic reviews of the process.
In addition to free speech rights and free speech responsibilities, the University’s rules ban discrimination and harassment, as required under Title VI (6) and other laws. Since the University’s legal team is responsible for legal compliance, they should clarify what speech contributes to a hostile learning or working environment. Like in the gender-based misconduct rules, the University should offer “scenarios.” These clear cases should illustrate what violates our rules and what does not, so adjudicators can consider whether a particular incident, which may be harder to classify, is more like the “good” or “bad” scenarios. These scenarios should be about all protected classes, not just Israelis and Jews.
Indeed, to comply with the law, the University must be consistent in its treatment of different protected classes. For example, if members of a protected class say that particular phrases or comments interfere with their ability to learn and work, should the University defer to them? Or should the University focus instead–not on how the protected class hears these words–but on what the speakers intend in saying them? In recent years, it has become increasingly common at Columbia to defer to a protected class’s views. But when some Israeli and Jewish Columbia affiliates have complained about phrases or comments in recent months, the response has been different, defending the intentions and free speech rights of the speakers. While there are important reasons to value the perspective of both the speaker and the audience, the University must be consistent in its approach.
Finally, it is worth emphasizing that even when offensive words are permissible under the University’s rules, they may still be disappointing or even reprehensible. In discussing difficult issues, we should always strive to state our position with civility and collegially.
Part II of this report identifies key principles the rules need to uphold. Part III emphasizes the critical role of content- and viewpoint-neutral “time, place, and manner” restrictions, and recommends ways to make them more effective. Part IV focuses on antidiscrimination rules, analyzing how the University can effectively combat harassment while also protecting free speech rights.
In writing this report, the Task Force has benefited enormously from repeated consultations with the Office of the President, the Office of the Provost, University Life, faculty members of the University Senate, the Kraft Center, and members of task forces at other universities, as well as deans, senior administrators, faculty members, alumni, staff, and students from across the University, including in listening sessions we have been holding across the campus. We are deeply grateful for the valuable insights so many have shared, and appreciate their staunch commitment to addressing the challenges considered in this report.
Before turning to our analysis, we should clarify its scope. This report discusses general issues of policy, not specific protests or other incidents from recent months. This focus reflects the Task Force’s charge. We were convened to perform an important but limited task: to gain a deeper understanding of the situation on campus and to make recommendations about how the University should respond. We do not have management authority, and we are not an adjudicative body. Therefore, we do not offer public comments “in real time.” For the same reason, this report addresses broad challenges, instead of particular events.
A number of rules are not analyzed in this report, including those governing the recognition and discipline of student groups, classroom conduct, off-campus activity, and social media. In future reports, we will consider some of these other rules, as well as other issues.
Footnotes
(6) As the Department of Justice has explained, “Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., was enacted as part of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.” Civil Rights Division U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
II. Three Fundamental Principles
Before turning to the specifics of our rules, we begin with basic principles. Our rules must embody an unshakeable commitment to three core ideas: first, the right to free speech and academic freedom; second, the responsibility to respect the free speech rights and academic freedom of others; and, third, our communal commitment to antidiscrimination.
A. Free Speech Rights
The mission of a great university is to expand the frontiers of knowledge and to educate future generations. This mission requires uncompromising rigor in uncovering facts and analyzing ideas. Truth is found not by seeking to justify what we want to believe, but by constantly testing, and then updating, our knowledge and understanding.
This timeless process can function effectively only if our minds remain open. There can be no orthodoxies. The fact that an idea is widely accepted should not exempt it from scrutiny. The fact that an idea is controversial, or even offensive, should not render it off limits. “The right of members of our university to share views that may be unpopular or deemed offensive,” observed the seventeen deans of our faculties and schools in a recent statement, “is protected and fundamental to an academic community that depends on the free exchange of views and ideas.” (7) In the words of Section 440 of the Senate’s Rules of University Conduct, “the University is a place for received wisdom and firmly held views to be tested, and tested again, so that members of the University community can listen, challenge each other, and be challenged in return.” This bedrock principle of academic freedom must never be compromised.
B. Free Speech Responsibilities
Just as we all have the right to speak our minds in pursuit of truth, we also have the responsibility to respect–indeed, to protect–this right for other Columbia affiliates. Needless to say, violence, threats, and intimidation also have no place at a great university.
In addition, our right to speak must not come at the expense of the right of others to speak, teach, research, and learn. We must not use the “heckler’s veto” to shout down other speakers, tear down or deface posters, disrupt classrooms, or impede other essential functions of the University. These “rules of the road,” which are known as “time, place, and manner” restrictions, are essential to the academic enterprise. Intellectual inquiry cannot proceed without them.
These limits, which protect all of us, are not about what we say, but about where, when, and how we say it. Every Columbia affiliate has the right to explore and defend the causes they cherish. But no one has the right to drown out other voices or interfere with the University ’s teaching mission. As Section 440 of the Rules of University Conduct explains, “The right to demonstrate, for example, cannot come at the expense of the right of others to counter-demonstrate, to teach, or to engage in academic pursuits requiring uninterrupted attention.”
These limits must be applied consistently and evenhandedly. It would be unacceptable for them to be invoked selectively to silence particular voices. Rather, time, place, and manner restrictions must be content- and viewpoint-neutral.
C. Antidiscrimination
Just as we cherish and nurture the pursuit of truth, we also are committed to treating all members of our community with respect. Every Columbia affiliate deserves to feel safe. They must know that they belong here. The University must be a welcoming home to all students, faculty, and staff, regardless of their race, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age, disability, military service, or other legally protected status. This obligation flows not only from our values, but also from Title VI, Title IX, and other federal, state, and local laws.
To discharge this obligation, the University does not guarantee that others will always agree with us. This surely will not happen and, in a place of intellectual ferment, it should not happen. Each of us will encounter ideas and perspectives we reject–indeed, even ones we find offensive. This is part of the compact we make with each other: everyone can express their views.
But harassment and discrimination cannot be tolerated. Nor should anyone be free to engage in violence or to call for violence against members of our community or groups to which they belong. This reprehensible conduct denies members of our community the experience they deserve.
Footnotes
(7) Deans’ Message on Columbia and Community, Dec. 20, 2023.
III. Enhancing the University’s Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions
To operationalize these three essential commitments–free speech rights, free speech responsibilities, and antidiscrimination–the University needs effective rules of the road. These “time, place, and manner” restrictions are an essential protection for every member of our community, so the University has to ensure that they are effective.
A. Timing & Location of Demonstrations
Every Columbia affiliate must have the right to engage in peaceful protests. But although this is a proud tradition at Columbia, it must not interfere with the rights of other Columbia affiliates to speak, teach, research, and learn. To protect this right for everyone, the University needs to specify when and where demonstrations are permitted.
In our view, demonstrations should not be allowed in academic buildings, libraries, dormitories, or dining halls, as well as too close to the entrances to these buildings. (8) Unfortunately, this has not always been the practice in recent months.
The right place for demonstrations is in outdoor spaces like the South Lawn and the Sundial in Columbia’s Morningside campus, Futter Field in Barnard’s campus, and comparable locations on other campuses. (9) The locations should be prominent. Our goal is not to consign demonstrations to remote locales where they will go unnoticed. Yet the location must ensure that demonstrations do not interfere with classroom learning and other essential functions of the University.
In this spirit, Section 443(14) of the Rules of University Conduct renders it a violation when someone “incident to a demonstration . . . disrupts a University function or renders its continuation impossible.” This is the right principle.
To operationalize this principle more effectively, we recommend focusing more explicitly on location. After all, a standard based solely on “disruption” can be ambiguous, and can require more nuanced fact-finding. For example, some participants in a demonstration in an academic building might claim that, unlike others, they were speaking in a low voice and thus were not disruptive. Sorting out these facts is not always easy. In contrast, the question of where a protest was, and whether someone actually attended it, is easier to answer. (10)
As a result, we are pleased that Columbia and Barnard’s new Interim Demonstrations Policies adopt this location-based approach, requiring demonstrations to be in “Demonstration Areas” (East South Lawn, West South Lawn, and the Sundial on Columbia’s Morningside campus and Futter Field on Barnard’s campus) at designated times, inviting members of the community to reserve these spaces, and guaranteeing access to them regardless of the views expressed in the demonstration. We consider this a major step forward in Columbia and Barnard’s efforts to protect the free speech rights and academic freedom of every member of our community.
B. Sound Enhancement
Keeping demonstrations outside academic buildings protects everyone’s rights by putting distance between demonstrations and academic work. Yet sound amplification systems and megaphones can negate this distance. As a result, “a noise that substantially hinders others in their normal academic activities” is a violation under Section 443(12) of the Rules of University Conduct, and rightly so.
More specific guidance should be offered about what sound enhancement (if any) is permitted. (11) While it can help protesters hear speakers, it also can disturb Columbia affiliates in nearby classrooms, dormitories, or libraries. For this reason, Barnard’s Interim Demonstration Policy provides that “those participating in registered Demonstrations may not use noise amplification (e.g., megaphones, bull horns, etc.) or sound machines (e.g., pots, pans, instruments, etc.) during Demonstrations.”
C. Safety, Notice, and Physical Separation
The University’s highest priority must always be physical safety. When members of our community exercise their right to protest, they must be free to do so in safety and without fear. Unfortunately, this has not always been the case in recent months, and this is not acceptable.
To be fully prepared to guarantee safety during demonstrations, the University requires notice of when they will take place. The new Interim Demonstrations Policies generally require two business days, which we think is reasonable.
The rules also must ensure a minimum distance between competing protests. While Section 443(18) of the Rules of University Conduct authorizes rules delegates to give reasonable orders to keep protests apart, we recommend also specifying a minimum distance and rigorously enforcing this rule.
D. Banners
Like the location of protests, the location of signs and banners should be subject to viewpoint- and content-neutral time, place, and manner rules. In general, holding signs and banners in authorized demonstrations should be permitted. But hanging banners on any interior or exterior surface of a building should be prohibited unless the administration of the relevant school has approved it.
E. Limiting Access to Campus
Columbia affiliates must be allowed to demonstrate on campus, as well as to invite speakers and a reasonable number of guests to participate in the demonstration. But aside from these invited guests, non-affiliates are not entitled to this privilege. Unfortunately, their participation can come at a cost, if only because they do not know the University’s rules and have less reason to abide by them. We realize that the need to present IDs can be inconvenient for Columbia affiliates and can affect the atmosphere on campus, but on balance we think the University generally should limit demonstrations to affiliates.
F. Enforcement During Demonstrations
While we generally agree with the language of the University’s rules, we have serious concerns about their enforcement. To the University’s credit, a senior team of administrators with different expertise and responsibilities has been meeting regularly to prepare for demonstrations, making daily (and at times even more frequent) judgments about staffing and other aspects of the University’s response. This degree of coordination is impressive. It signals how seriously the University takes these issues.
Nevertheless, enforcement has fallen short in two ways. First, the University has regularly failed to stop violations of rules as they occur. Second, there also have been challenges in imposing discipline after the fact. We discuss these two issues in turn.
1. “Real Time” Efforts to Prevent Protests in Academic Buildings
First, when an unauthorized demonstration is taking place, representatives of the University should intervene more proactively “in real time.” Obviously, these interventions are especially important to protect physical safety. In addition, we would prioritize interventions to prevent disruption of classes and other academic work, for instance, when there is an unauthorized demonstration in an academic building.
We recognize how challenging it can be for the University to manage and respond to demonstrations, and we truly appreciate the strenuous efforts of rules delegates and public safety officers in recent months. The volume of protests has spiked, and the campus climate is more tense than at any time in recent memory. Enforcing our rules, while also avoiding confrontation, is no easy task.
Even so, we urge these colleagues to be more ambitious. They should not be content just to “wait out” a demonstration and prevent violence. This sort of deescalatory posture is necessary, to be sure, but it is not sufficient. The University also has to prevent the disruption of classes and, more generally, to protect the academic freedom and free speech rights of the rest of the Columbia community.
2. Avoiding Physical Confrontation
To be clear, we are not recommending the forcible removal of protesters or routine reliance on the NYPD. On the contrary, the University should not repeat its overly aggressive response to protests over half a century ago in 1968. Physical interventions are appropriate only to break up fights and protect protesters and bystanders from violence. Our understanding is that this is the only circumstance in which public safety officers initiate physical contact, and we agree.
3. Better Nonconfrontational Approaches
Instead, the focus should be on developing better nonconfrontational options. We stand ready to offer input in analyzing alternatives. In that spirit, we recommend that rules delegates should tell demonstrators they are violating the rules, offer a card with the relevant rules, and ask them to disperse within a specified period of time (e.g., ten minutes). Protesters should also be told that names will have to be taken and disciplinary processes will have to be initiated for anyone who is still there after the specified time has elapsed. After this time has passed, if any protesters are still in the academic building, public safety officers should ask for their IDs. If the protesters refuse–a rule violation in and of itself–public safety officers should take their photos, a step that can help identify them even if they are masked.
Section 443(16)–(18) of the Rules of University Conduct authorize delegates of the University to regulate demonstrations in these and other ways. We understand that other universities have had some success with these sorts of steps. Fortunately, some of these steps are starting to be taken more frequently on our campus.
As long as this effort during a demonstration is paired with effective investigation and adjudication after it is over, as discussed below, we expect that most protesters will choose to comply with the rules. This should be all the more true because they can still hold demonstrations: these protests simply have to be during designated hours in authorized locations (e.g., on South Lawn or Futter Field), and not in academic buildings, libraries, dorms, and the like.
4. Expertise, Conflicts of Interest, and the Number of Rules Delegates
The steps suggested above should be assigned to professionals with the right expertise. In recent years, our rules delegates have been student affairs professionals. They are well suited to make an initial approach, gently reminding students of the rules, as well as of the prospect of discipline for protests in academic buildings. In contrast, public safety officers have a comparative advantage in the subsequent steps of asking for IDs and taking photographs.
In assigning roles, the University should consider how responsibilities at protests interact with a rules delegate’s other responsibilities. For example, student affairs professionals may be wary of confronting student protesters, worrying that a negative encounter may undercut their effectiveness in other work with these students. Unfortunately, student affairs professionals also face another risk: failure to intervene–and, indeed, the perception that they implicitly endorse rules violations–can undermine their relationship with other students.
One way to address this challenge is to staff protests with rules delegates from other schools. For example, if there is an unauthorized protest at the law school, the rules delegates assigned to it could be from the business school, and vice versa. Our understanding is that this already is the University’s practice.
Another solution is to broaden the pool of rules delegates, so they include colleagues whose other responsibilities do not create this potential tension. Another advantage of broadening the pool in this way is that rules delegates may benefit from having a wider range of expertise within their ranks.
The University should also invest more resources in this effort. Currently, the compensation for rules delegates is a modest stipend, so more may be warranted in the current climate. We also need more of them, at least in the current environment. The increased number of protests poses the risk of burnout for a small group. In addition, the more proactive approach recommended here may require a larger presence at unauthorized protests.
5. Communal Support for This Effort
While rules delegates and public safety officers play a central role in enforcing time, place, and manner restrictions, they cannot do this alone. The rest of our community must support them in this effort. Every Columbia affiliate has a stake in protecting the right to protest, while also ensuring that protests do not interfere with the free-speech rights and academic freedom of others.
Unfortunately, some faculty and administrators have failed to convey this message. When they speak at unauthorized demonstrations, or when they help shield the identity of students who are violating the University’s rules, their apparent endorsement of unauthorized protests sends a confusing signal to students. In response, we encourage deans and department chairs to communicate the importance of time, place, and manner rules, while also discouraging colleagues from undercutting these rules.
G. Enforcement After Demonstrations
In addition to intervening “in real time,” the University also must take the right steps after the fact. The University must investigate incidents, initiate disciplinary processes, and impose sanctions when warranted. Yet unfortunately, we are concerned that these efforts after an incident are falling short in four ways, which we discuss in turn. We would be pleased to work with the Administration and the Senate to explore alternatives for addressing these problems.
1. Identifying Masked Demonstrators
First, our understanding is that investigating incidents has been a challenge in part because many demonstrators have been masked. A more proactive effort is needed to identify them during demonstrations, as noted above.
2. Deadlines
Second, Columbia’s deadlines in the Rules of University Conduct are too tight. “Generally, . . . [i]nvestigation begins within five (5) business days after an incident” and is supposed to be “completed within fifteen (15) business days after the investigation begins.” (12)
We understand why the drafters of this timetable did not want unnecessary delays. Speed ensures that memories are fresh, respondents are not subjected to a protracted process, and any necessary discipline is administered promptly.
However, the general timeline in the rules is too short. For one thing, this timeline implicitly assumes that complaints will be filed almost immediately, so investigations can begin within five days. But this is not realistic. For some potential complainants, the incident they need to report was upsetting, even traumatic. They need time to process what happened, and may simply not feel ready to file a report right away. In other cases, complainants do not even know that they are supposed to file or, for that matter, how to do so.
In addition, tight deadlines also create the wrong incentives for colleagues investigating these incidents. If they wait too long, they lose the ability to bring an action. In response, they may be tempted to initiate proceedings before they have all the facts. These facts are not always easy to gather, especially when potential respondents are masked. Indeed, just figuring out who they are can take time. Pushing for an immediate judgment, which is made merely to meet the relevant deadlines, is not in anyone’s interest.
There are a number of ways to address this issue. At a minimum, the timeline in the rules should be treated as aspirational, not binding. This reading is plausible because the rules use the phrase “generally” to modify the timeline. But instead of merely relying on this interpretation, we recommend that the schedule should be adjusted. The Senate should coordinate with the Rules Administrator to determine what the new timeline should be.
We understand from members of the Senate Executive Committee that they expect reasonable extensions to be granted. While this is helpful, the process for granting extensions should be clarified. For example, the Rules Administrator should not have to wait until after the adjudication has begun. Otherwise, there is a possibility that the extension will be denied after the parties have invested significant effort to prepare. Rather, extensions should be granted (or denied) at an earlier stage. Our understanding is that this sort of process has been developed, but we think a more general (and nondiscretionary) adjustment to the deadlines would be a more transparent and administrable solution.
3. Informal Processes
While the rules provide for formal disciplinary processes, they also offer the option of informal resolutions. (13) Our understanding is that these informal processes have been by far the most common method of resolving issues over the years.
Yet unfortunately, a number of students have not participated in informal proceedings in recent months, a choice our rules currently allow them to make. (14) This is a missed opportunity. Informal proceedings let students learn the rules and commit to follow them in the future, while avoiding lasting reputational consequences. The University also avoids the burden of a formal proceeding. Given these mutual benefits, the rules should do more to encourage informal resolutions. We recommend that respondents should be required to meet with the Rules Administrator. To be clear, we would not require them to agree to an informal resolution, but to attend an informal meeting.
In addition, the rules should clarify that even when a respondent refuses to meet, the Rules Administrator still has authority to issue a formal warning, assuming the alleged violation is simple (not serious) and is the respondent’s first violation. Otherwise, the Rules Administrator would be encouraged to proceed with formal charges even when she considers these steps unnecessary.
Likewise, the rules should clarify that even when a respondent refuses to meet, the Rules Administrator has the authority to keep records of the incident. We understand that some respondents have asserted that the Rules Administrator does not have authority to retain records in this situation. But these records are necessary: if the respondent is later involved in another incident, the Rules administrator needs to be able to take the informal resolution and the warning into account.
4. An Untested Process
Unlike most other universities, Columbia uses a separate process, coordinated by the University Senate, when individuals are charged with violating rules governing protests. Although a version of this process has existed for many years, it has been used only a handful of times since it was significantly modified in 2015, and not at all during the Fall Semester. In contrast, the University’s other disciplinary processes are used much more regularly. (15)
Since this process is largely untested–with all the downsides that entails– strenuous efforts are needed to ensure that it is effective. For one thing, rigorous training is essential. After all, unlike the experienced decisionmakers in the University’s other disciplinary processes, a number of the members of the Senate’s Judicial Board–a body that includes faculty, students, and administrators–presumably have relatively little experience adjudicating disputes.
Clear delineation of institutional roles is also important. For example, the Senate Rules Committee is responsible for drafting and revising rules, while the Judicial Board is responsible for adjudicating matters under the rules. It is important not to blur the lines between legislative and adjudicatory functions.
Sharing information internally also is critical. Unlike in the U.S. court system, where outcomes are publicly available, student discipline generally is confidential under the Family Educational Rights Privacy Act (“FERPA”). (16) Since there are no reported precedents, respondents cannot confirm that they have been treated the same way as similarly situated respondents. This must not be the case with members of the Judicial Board. They must have access to the necessary information, and we have been told that they do. This is essential, so members of the Judicial Board will know how similar incidents have been treated and treat them the same way. Indeed, consistency is not just a moral imperative, but also a legal requirement (e.g., since singling out a protected class for different treatment can violate Title VI).
As the Judicial Board gains experience, it is essential to review their decisions and address any issues that are identified. For example, we endorse the Senate Executive Committee’s commitment to conduct periodic reviews of Judicial Board decisions under Columbia’s Interim Demonstrations Policy.
H. Education About the Rules
To ensure that everyone complies with the rules, we need not just better enforcement, but also better education. A concerted effort is required to ensure that Columbia affiliates know the rules, as well as the rationale for them.
As we have emphasized, time, place, and manner restrictions are there to protect speech, not to suppress it. In a community where academic freedom and free speech are bedrock values, we should all comply with these restrictions not just to avoid discipline, but to honor our values and show respect for the rights of others.
Interim Provost Mitchell’s January message, summarizing key features of the rules governing demonstrations, was a productive step. We recommend additional efforts within every school and department to educate members of our community about the right way (and the wrong way) to exercise their free speech rights.
I. Simpler Process for Reporting
Under Columbia’s rules, filing a report is a key way to initiate investigations and disciplinary processes. Yet although Columbia affiliates are supposed to file a report when they witness a rule violation, many are not doing so. The University has already taken productive steps to address this problem, but more should still be done.
First, many Columbia affiliates do not understand the function of these reports. For example, some mistakenly assume that there is no reason to report something that administrators also witnessed. The (understandable) assumption is that if these administrators already know about a situation, there is no need to report it. But reports should be filed not just to inform those administrators, but also to initiate an investigation of (and, potentially, discipline for) the relevant incident. Administrators can ask for an investigation, and we encourage them to do so when one is warranted. But every Columbia affiliate has this power–not just administrators–and we should all use it.
Second, in addition to knowing why they should file, Columbia affiliates also need to know how to do it. This process should be simplified. At the moment, different forms are required for different types of violations. There are separate links for academic violations, discrimination by students, discrimination by faculty and staff, gender-based misconduct by students, gender-based misconduct by faculty and staff, and general concerns (including violations of the rules governing protests).
To help Columbia affiliates navigate this maze of reporting requirements, the University has put all of these links on a single webpage. They also have introduced a helpline, as well as a help desk, to guide members of our community in this process.
While these are productive steps, we recommend something more ambitious: the University should consolidate the various links and forms to a single one. After affiliates fill it out, an administrator should review it and route it to the appropriate department. This administrator will know–far more readily than a student–which rules and policies are implicated, as well as who should investigate and adjudicate it. By relieving the complainant of this obligation, the University can make filing a report easier, faster, and less daunting.
Finally, the University also should help Columbia affiliates understand what happens after they file a report, including what else may be expected of them. This process is not well understood, and there has been only limited communication after reports are filed.
J. Aggregate Reporting on Discipline
Another reason why some are not reporting violations is that they believe nothing will happen. This is problematic not only in discouraging reporting, but also in shaping perceptions of the University among important stakeholders, including current and potential students, faculty, staff, alumni, and parents. Even more importantly, this perception may induce students to violate rules. As a result, the University needs to share more information about the results of disciplinary processes.
Under FERPA, the University cannot share information about specific individuals. But there is no bar on aggregate reporting. On a regular basis, the University should share information about the number of disciplinary investigations underway, the number of adjudications, and the range of consequences administered, while also ensuring that this reporting is done in a way that respects the privacy of the individuals involved. Consistent with FERPA, the University also should communicate with those who have filed complaints, reassuring them that their concerns have been taken seriously.
Footnotes
(8) The University has legal obligations to ensure that entrances to these buildings are clear. For example, the University has to ensure that Columbia affiliates with disabilities have ready access to these entrances, as well as an obligation under Title VI to ensure that protected groups have access to educational opportunities, and thus to these buildings.
(9) In choosing the right locations in the health sciences campus, the University must also account for the needs of patients.
(10) Some nondisruptive forms of expression should be permitted in an academic building, such as wearing a particular T-shirt or pin.
(11) This guidance could appear either in an updated version of the Demonstrations Policy or as an addition to Rule 443(12).
(12) Section 446, Rules of University Conduct.
(13) Rules of University Conduct, Sec. 445(a) (authorizing Rules Delegate to “organize informal settlements”); see also Sec. 447 (providing for informal resolutions).
(14) Rules of University Conduct, Sec. 446 (“A respondent may decline to participate in the investigative or adjudicative process.”).
(15) Dean’s discipline” is used for academic, behavioral, and other student misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, vandalism, discrimination, harassment, etc.). The University also has other processes for student gender-based misconduct. Misconduct, including discrimination, involving faculty and other employees is addressed through a separate track.
(16) Department of Education, The Family Educational Rights Privacy Act.
IV. Antidiscrimination
In addition to free speech rights and free speech responsibilities, our rules also advance a third principle: our collective opposition to discrimination and harassment. Columbia University’s Non-discrimination Statement and Policy bans discrimination based on a number of protected statuses, including “citizenship status; . . .color; . . . disability; familial status; gender (sex); gender identity; . . . national origin; . . . race; religion; . . . sexual orientation; . . . veteran or active military status; or any other applicable, legally protected status.”
A. Discrimination and Harassment are Not Protected Speech
So although the University must protect speech vigorously, it does not do so absolutely. While we all pledge to tolerate speech that we consider misguided or even offensive–in a collective commitment to protect everyone’s right to speak their minds and pursue the truth–the University does not tolerate speech that constitutes discrimination or harassment against protected classes. This commitment is grounded not only in our collective values, but also in the law.
Indeed, a key function of the University’s antidiscriminaton rules is to comply with Title VI, as well as with other federal, state, and local laws. While the University has latitude to offer more protection against discrimination than the law requires, it cannot offer less.
So even as the Rules of University Conduct protect free speech rights, the Affirmative Statement in Rule 440 acknowledges that “the University may restrict expression that constitutes a genuine threat of harassment,” recognizing that harassment does “little if anything to advance the University’s truth-seeking function” and “impair[s] the ability of individuals at the University to participate in that function.”
Under federal, state, and local law, discrimination and harassment can be caused not just by conduct, but also by speech. Applying these rules, the University defines “discriminatory harassment” to include “unwelcome conduct” that is “verbal” as well as “physical”:
“Subjecting an individual to unwelcome conduct, whether verbal or physical, that creates an intimidating, hostile, or abusive working, learning or campus living environment; that alters the conditions of employment or education; or unreasonably interferes with an individual’s work or academic performance on the basis of the individual’s membership in a protected class is harassment which is a form of discrimination.” (Emphasis added.) (17)
Applying Title VI and other applicable laws, University policies include speech of various kinds in their definition of harassment:
Harassment may include, but is not limited to: verbal abuse, epithets, or slurs; negative stereotyping; threatening, intimidating, and hostile acts; denigrating jokes; insulting or obscene comments or gestures; and the display or circulation of written or graphic material (including in hard copy, by email or text; or through social media) that denigrates or shows hostility or aversion toward an individual or group members of a protected class. (18)
The University’s antidiscrimination rules are administered by the University’s general disciplinary processes (“dean’s discipline” for students, and human resources processes for faculty and staff under the Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Office or “EOAA”), not the special rules for protests (such as the Senate’s Rules of University Conduct and the new Interim Demonstrations Policy). This division of labor reflects the reality that antidiscrimination rules enforce federal, state, and local law, so the Office of the General Counsel and the Administration need to take the lead in drafting and administering them. The same is true of the University’s rules policing gender-based misconduct under Title IX. As a result, the student conduct standards expressly provide that “behavior listed in this section [including discriminatory harassment] that occurs in conjunction with” alleged violations of rules governing protests “may be adjudicated” through dean’s discipline. (19)
B. Need for Guidance On What Constitutes Discriminatory Harassment
We urge the University to provide more guidance on the meaning of “discriminatory harassment,” including antisemitic harassment. What kind of speech “creates an intimidating, hostile, or abusive working, learning or campus living environment” under Title VI?
The University’s definition of harassment states that “epithets or slurs” clearly can contribute to a hostile learning and working environment. Obviously, it violates the rules to approach a Jewish student and say, “F*** the Jews,” just as it would violate the rules to make this sort of offensive comment to a member of any protected class.
The definition of harassment also includes “negative stereotyping” and “insulting . . . comments.” So when Jewish students walk by a group that is protesting against policies of the Israeli government, the rules are violated if the protesters heckle these students by attributing Israel’s policies to them (e.g., “you bomb hospitals”).
The same is true when assumptions are made about Israeli faculty members, students, and staff, including those in joint programs with Israeli universities, just because these Columbia affiliates have served in the military. Since most Israelis are required to serve in the military, calls to exclude Israeli veterans from campus apply to nearly all Israeli Columbia affiliates. Making assumptions about Columbia affiliates based solely on their country of origin or military service can constitute discrimination based on national origin or military service under the University’s rules.
The University also has said that calls for genocide, like other incitement to violence, violate the rules:
“Calls for genocide against the Jewish community or any other group are abhorrent, inconsistent with our values and against our rules. Incitement to violence against members of our community will not be tolerated.” (20)
While we agree with this principle, the application of it should be clarified. Obviously, the chants “gas the Jews” and “Hitler was right” are calls to genocide, but fortunately no one at Columbia has been shouting these phrases (though there are reports that these chants were used at another university). (21) Rather, many of the chants at recent Columbia protests are viewed differently by different members of the Columbia community: some feel strongly that these are calls to genocide, while others feel strongly that they are not.
At some point, courts and the Department of Education are likely to offer additional guidance illuminating the Title VI implications of these chants, as well as other speech and conduct at protests. (22) This would be helpful. In the interim, the University’s legal team should provide more guidance on this issue. Since this ultimately is a matter of legal compliance, we do not offer a detailed analysis here. Instead, we emphasize a few key points.
First, the University’s commitments to ban discrimination and to protect free speech are both foundational, so managing potential tensions between these commitments is not easy. Even as the University strives to protect free speech rights, it must also ensure compliance with antidiscrimination laws.
In addition, in pursuing these critically important goals, the University should aim to make the lines it draws as clear as possible, while recognizing that perfect clarity about every conceivable circumstance is not always possible. Even so, efforts to provide greater clarity help to provide fair notice, so Columbia affiliates have more of a sense of what is permissible (even if offensive) and what is not. Clearer guidance also helps colleagues who investigate potential incidents, so they know when alleged facts violate the rules. Likewise, greater clarity helps ensure that different adjudicators treat similar conduct the same way.
Recognizing the importance of clarity, the University’s rules on gender-based misconduct include “scenarios,” which illustrate what is permitted and what is not. (23) While these scenarios cannot govern every conceivable circumstance, and focus on relatively clear cases, they still lend clarity by illustrating general principles and inviting decisionmakers to consider whether a particular incident is more like one scenario (e.g., that is permitted) than another (e.g., that is not). To ensure that members of our community are aware of these rules, the University requires periodic online training for all members of the community. We recommend a similar effort for other types of discrimination, including antisemitic harassment. In the coming weeks, we would be pleased to work with the General Counsel’s office, University Life, and other colleagues to analyze these issues in more detail.
C. Consistency in the Treatment of Protected Classes
Needless to say, Jews and Israelis are not the only groups that could experience discriminatory harassment. The rules must defend all protected classes.
In applying the rules to different groups, the University has to make consistent judgments. Indeed, consistency is necessary as a way not just to keep faith with our values, but also to comply with Title VI and other applicable laws. In general, the University must provide the same level of protection to different protected classes. By affording vigorous protection to some, but not others, the University would violate Title VI.
As a result, speech or conduct that would constitute harassment if directed against one protected class must also be treated as harassment if directed against another protected class. This must be true not only in the way rules are written, but also in the way they are enforced.
In this spirit, the University needs to use the same methodology when deciding whether speech constitutes harassment. Should the focus be on the audience or the speaker? If members of a protected class say that particular phrases or comments cause them pain, should the University defer to them? Or should the University focus instead–not on how the protected class hears these words–but on what the speakers intend in saying them?
In recent years, it has become increasingly common at Columbia to defer to protected classes in defining which statements are considered biased or hateful, prioritizing the concerns of the audience (i.e., the protected class) over the intentions of the speaker. This approach has been evident, for instance, in discussions of policing, affirmative action, sexual assault, transgender rights, and other important issues.
But a different norm has applied to many Jewish and Israeli Columbia affiliates in recent months. When they have complained about phrases and statements that cause them pain, some students, faculty members, and staff have not deferred to their concerns. Instead, they have responded that the speakers actually mean something else, which is not offensive, or that the speakers have the right to speak their minds.
This is a challenging issue, since there are important reasons to value the perspective of both the speaker and the audience. But regardless of how this issue is resolved, the University needs to be consistent in its approach.
D. Consistency and Expertise in Investigation and Adjudication
The University has an office that investigates and adjudicates gender-based harassment and discrimination under Title IX (the Office of Gender-Based Misconduct), and different offices that investigate and adjudicate harassment and discrimination under Title VI (the EOAA process for faculty and staff and the dean’s discipline process for students). It is important to ensure that comparably rigorous levels of training are provided to these colleagues, and that consistent standards are used for different protected classes.
In pursuing these goals, the University should draw on its experience in administering Title IX. For example, the University can consider using a similar structure (e.g., a separate office), as well as similar training and staffing strategies. There may also be synergies in closer coordination of these efforts.
E. Values as Well as Rules
Finally, it is important to emphasize that the question of what the rules allow is not the same as the question of what members of our community actually should say and do. We all have the right to take controversial positions, and rightly so. We even have the right to say offensive things.
But with rights of free expression come responsibilities, including to consider the effects of our expression on others. We should never be indifferent to the pain and discomfort our words cause, regardless of the ideas we seek to advance. Indeed, whether we are passionate in defending the rights of Israelis, Palestinians, or anyone else, we should recognize that others have convictions that are just as heartfelt. Even as we disagree, we should still respect each other’s feelings. An institution of higher learning is an appropriate place to learn these responsibilities.
Columbia affiliates must never shy away from the great issues of the day. Our University must always strive to shed the light of reason on the defining challenges of our time. To advance our mission, we must be willing to express strong views, follow evidence and arguments where they lead, and confront painful truths. As part of this process, members of our community inevitably will disagree.
But even as we express competing views, the University is at its best when we all strive to state our position with civility and collegially. Making the case in this way shows not only skill as an advocate, but also human decency and respect for shared values. As Columbia’s seventeen deans recently said, “the grace of compassionate engagement should be extended to all members of our community in equal measure.”
Footnotes
(17) EOAA Discrimination and Harassment Policies, at 7.
(18) See id at 7.
(19) Standards & Discipline at 9 n.2.
(20) Event Policy and Campus Resources FAQs (What is Columbia doing to address antisemitism on campus, and what is Columbia’s reaction to calls for genocide against Jews?).
(21) Reuters, NYU is sued by Jewish students who allege antisemitism on campus, Jerusalem Post, Nov. 15, 2023; see also Olivia Land, Reprehensible anti-Israel protesters chant ‘Gas the Jews’ outside Sydney Opera House: video, Oct. 10, 2023.
(22) The Department of Education has already indicated that even speech protected under the First Amendment can still create a hostile learning environment under Title VI. In these circumstances, if universities cannot stop this speech, they are expected to condemn it.
(23) Gender Based Misconduct Office, Gender-Based Misconduct and Interim Title IX Policies and Procedures for Students 23-26.
israel-academia-monitor.com 
He is not a whistle-blower, as countless Jews there have attested. This nonsense has got to stop. The performance art and incessant lawfare and propaganda. Please. It is not helpful. It is bullying. And when there is real antisemitism, nobody is going to listen or care. There is real suffering on all sides and genuine victims that need help. This man is a performance artist. He needs to return to Israel and not take up any more airtime, court time, or readers time. People are exhausted. And just fed up with the likes of him and Gideon Falter. Pull up the videos of Jewish students and Holocaust survivors for the truth and ask yourselves why only these two are given the coverage and credence. It is just wicked.
LikeLike