On April 17, 2024, lawmakers questioned Columbia University President Minouche Shafik and three colleagues about anti-Semitism on university campuses, just 4 months after three of their presidential colleagues went to Capitol Hill over the way in which their institutions responded within the wake of the Hamas attack Dealing with anti-Semitism on campus, Israel was summoned on October 7, 2023. Two of them resigned shortly afterwards. Here, Lynn Greenkya communications and rhetoric scholar, shares how Shafik handled being in the identical hot seat as her colleagues.
How was today's hearing different from the one on December fifth?
Unlike Claudine Gay, Liz Magill, and Sally Kornbluth—the presidents of Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, and MIT, respectively—Shafik and the opposite Columbia University witnesses spoke with greater moral clarity in regards to the query of what constitutes anti-Semitism on campus. Of course, they’d the advantage of having the ability to see first what would occur for those who didn't do it.
Columbia's president, Minouche Shafik, in addition to David Schizer and David Greenwald, co-chairs of the Columbia University Task Force on Antisemitism, and co-chair of the Board of Trustees Claire Shipman, were willing to acknowledge their responsibility, even guilt, for his or her failure to have interaction in hate speech against Jews to discover and control on campus. Shipman, specifically, made it clear that Columbia is affected by a “moral crisis” on its campus.
All witnesses showed great deference to the committee. They even thanked the committee for the investigation and asked for its assist in combating anti-Semitism on campus. In fact, Shipman concluded her opening statement by saying she looks forward to the committee's input as Columbia seeks to realign its vision with its core values of wisdom, empathy and respect.
What did the committee members say in regards to the faculty?
Professors Joseph Massad, Katherine Franke and Mohamed Abdu were mentioned by name.
Several members of the congressional committee singled out Massad for describing Hamas' attack on Israel on October 8, 2023 as… “great” and “innovative” in an internet article for particular scorn. Shafik promised the committee that Massad can be faraway from his position as chairman of Colombia's academic review board. their most important function is to “evaluate the quality and effectiveness of the program,” “promote planning and improvement,” and “provide guidance for administrative decisions.” Shafik also suggested that Massad might be fired, although his position was everlasting.
While some might argue that removing Massad as chair or firing him violates the professor's First Amendment right to academic freedom, it’s unclear whether this claim will save him. The Supreme Court has not provided any specific guidance on this matter Parameters of educational freedom. In fact, the concept of educational freedom generally refers to a scholar's freedom to conduct research, discussion, and teaching inside that scholar's field of research and in accordance with the institution's curriculum. Academic freedom just isn’t the identical as that of a professor individual right to specific one's opinion.
Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx, a Republican from West Virginia, warned this radical faculty remain a significant problem in Columbia. She said she expects Columbia to make “tangible progress” toward sanctioning or removing radical faculty members. If not, she says, Columbia will probably be brought back before the committee.
Was there a conflict over what constituted hate speech?
Rep. Elise Stefanik, a Republican from New York, recalled a House resolution that condemned the phrase “river to sea” as anti-Semitic and urged Shafik to alter her mind previous statement This suggested that the mantra may constitute protected political speech under certain circumstances.
Shafik seemed unwilling to label students or faculty as those that engaged in hate and harassment. She tried hard, sometimes unsuccessfully, to say the necessity to balance constitutionally protected speech with the tutorial mission of the university.
Still, Shafik incessantly testified that the policies and structures in place before the Oct. 7 attack in Columbia were inadequate. In her written statement to the committeeShafik acknowledged that before Oct. 7, Columbia's process for reporting allegations of hate speech, harassment and other types of disruptive behavior needed to be simplified. She also said staff training needed to be improved. During her testimony, she acknowledged her personal horror on the hatred and vitriol expressed on campus each before and after October seventh.
What actions would Shafik and her colleagues take?
Shafik, Schizer and Shipman each repeated the refrain that they were aware of the mistakes and oversights made in response to events on campus that, they said, left Jewish students indignant and afraid. They said they’re working to revise policies and practices that will encourage vigorous debate while protecting student safety.
As a results of some preliminary recommendations from the Columbia Task Force on Antisemitism, the University has updated the harassment and discrimination reporting and response process.
How will all of this impact free speech on campus?
Rep. Foxx made it clear that outbreaks proceed to occur on campus The House of Representatives has deemed it anti-Semiticrisk the withdrawal of federal funds.
Certainly a university or university has a compelling interest in protecting the liberty, safety and integrity of its students, faculty and staff. However, as all the time, the devil is in the small print. It is difficult to search out the correct balance between promoting informed debate and protecting against crime. When colleges and universities tackle this task, I often consider that the liberty to specific one's own opinion suffers.
image credit : theconversation.com