Congressional leaders berated Columbia University’s president on Wednesday during a three-and-a-half-hour hearing over how her administration has responded to allegations of rampant antisemitism on campus since the start of the Israel-Hamas war.
Nemat (Minouche) Shafik, Columbia’s president, was often interrupted when attempting to explain the difficulty of balancing student safety and free speech.
The hearing, hosted by the U.S. House’s Committee on Education and the Workforce, followed a similar hearing in December that ultimately led to the resignation of two Ivy League presidents — Elizabeth Magill, of the University of Pennsylvania, and Claudine Gay, of Harvard University. Shafik did not attend the December hearing, citing a traveling conflict.
On the Hot Seat
In the hearing, on Columbia’s response to alleged antisemitism and pro-Palestinian protests, lawmakers asked its president whether professors would be punished for comments on the war.
Shafik appeared with David M. Schizer, former dean of Columbia Law School and co-chair of the university’s antisemitism task force, as well as Claire Shipman and David Greenwald, co-chairs of the university’s Board of Trustees.
At one point, Rep. Ilhan Omar, Democrat of Minnesota, asked Shafik if any of the protests on campus had been anti-Jewish, which the president denied. Later, though, Rep. Elise Stefanik, Republican of New York, asked the rest of the panel the same question. They each said that some of the protests and events on campus had been anti-Jewish and antisemitic.
“You realize that at some of these events the slurs and the chants have been ‘F the Jews,’ ‘Death to Jews,’ ‘F Israel,’ ‘No safe place, death to the Zionist state,’ ‘Jews out,’” Stefanik then said to Shafik. “You don’t think those are anti-Jewish?”
Shafik responded — through several interruptions from Stefanik — that the protests had not been labeled as anti-Jewish, but that antisemitic incidents had happened and antisemitic things were said.
Politicians, activists, and free-speech advocates have chastised college administrators for the variety of ways they have enforced their codes of conduct and free-speech policies amid heightened campus protests.
“It is an anti-Jewish protest. You agree with that? You change your testimony?” Stefanik questioned again. “Antisemitic things were said at protests. Yes,” Shafik replied.
Throughout the hearing, Shafik and her team continued to emphasize the need to balance student safety with free speech, an issue that colleges across the country have been struggling with.
Lawmakers’ questioning focused mainly on whether Shafik and her team viewed pro-Palestinian slogans as antisemitic, how they have disciplined multiple professors who have made controversial remarks about Israel and Jewish people, and how Columbia trains its students to better understand antisemitism and other forms of discrimination.
Rep. Tim Walberg, Republican of Michigan, asked Shafik whether Joseph Massad, a professor in the department of Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African studies, had faced any consequences for an article he published on October 8 that refers to the attack as an “innovative Palestinian resistance.” Shafik said that she was appalled by Massad’s statement and that he had been spoken to. She added that he was under investigation.
“So, support of terrorism is acceptable if you’re a Columbia professor?” Walberg asked. “Not at all,” Shafik responded.
Walberg then asked if Shafik thought it was acceptable that Massad served as chair of the academic-review committee for the College of Arts and Sciences despite his views. She responded that he was no longer chair of the committee. Later, though, Stefanik rebutted Shafik, saying Massad was listed as chair of the committee on the university website. During the trial, Massad was still identified as the chair of the committee, but his status on the site later changed to “outgoing.”
Shafik said she wanted to get back to Stefanik with the correct information, to which the congresswoman replied, “So he hasn’t been removed? So you said in front of Congress under oath that he was removed?”
Massad refuted Shafik’s and lawmakers’ comments, The New York Times reported, saying his article had been misrepresented. He also said he had been scheduled to remain chair of the committee until his position’s tenure is up at the end of the semester, and he was unaware that he was under any investigation.
Stefanik also asked Shafik about Katherine Franke, a law professor at Columbia, and Mohamed Abdou, who was hired as a visiting professor of modern Arab studies in January. Both Franke and Abdou have received criticism from inside and outside the campus community for their comments about Israel, including a social-media post where Abdou wrote that he was “with Hamas & Hezbollah & Islamic Jihad.”
It’s a difficult issue because some people hear it as antisemitic, other people do not.
Stefanik chastised Columbia’s administration for allowing the professors to be hired and questioned why some of them hadn’t been disciplined. Shafik testified that Abdou had been terminated and told he would never work for the university again. Franke is under investigation, she said.
“We have 4,700 faculty at Columbia, most of whom spend all of their time dedicated to teaching their students,” Shafik said.
Stefanik then interrupted her: “But I’m talking about the faculty members who are supporting terror.”
Many representatives focused their questions on how the Columbia administrators defined antisemitism.
Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, Democrat of Oregon, asked the panel if calling for the genocide of the Jewish community was against Columbia’s policies, a question Stefanik had asked during December’s hearing. While Magill and Gay told Stefanik in December that the answer “depended on the context,” Shafik and her team each replied yes.
Later, Rep. Lisa McClain, Republican of Michigan, asked Shafik and Schizer to define antisemitism. McClain then brought up a New York Times article about members of Columbia’s antisemitism task force refusing to define the term. Many at Columbia reportedly say the task force will be unable to properly address antisemitism on campus if they can’t define the term.
When McClain asked if the article was inaccurate, both Shafik and Schizer replied that it was.
McClain then went on to ask if “mobs shouting ‘from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ or ‘long live the intifada’” was antisemitic. Shafik responded that to her, the slogans are “very upsetting” and should be considered antisemitic.
McClain continued to interrupt Shafik’s responses before finally asking “Why is this so tough?”
“It’s a difficult issue because some people hear it as antisemitic, other people do not,” Shafik said.
Rep. Jim Banks, Republican of Indiana, referred to what he said was a packet given to students in the School of Social Work during orientation. One of the key terms listed in the packet, Banks said, is ashkenormativity, which it defines as “a system of oppression that favors white Jewish folx based on the assumption that all Jewish folx are ashkenazi or from western Europe.” When asked if she thought it was an appropriate definition, Shafik said the form was created by students and not “a product” of the university or faculty. She added that she doesn’t condone it.
“You’re denying that this is an official product of the school but you are aware that it’s handed out to all your students and you’re not doing anything to stop it,” Banks said. He then pressed the rest of the panel, asking if the term was appropriate, to which Greenwald said it was “shockingly offensive.”
Rep. Richard W. Allen, Republican of Georgia, argued that Jerusalem should be the center of the universe. He then began to quote a Bible verse that he said states, “if you bless Israel, I will bless you. If you curse Israel, I will curse you.”
“Do you consider that a serious issue?” Allen asked Shafik. “Do you want Columbia to be cursed by God?” “Definitely not,” she replied, chuckling.
Rep. Virginia Foxx, Republican of North Carolina and chairwoman of the committee, accused Shafik of being misleading multiple times during her testimony.
While Shafik had testified that Columbia had suspended 15 students related to events following October 7, Foxx said, the administration lifted many of the punishments or placed the students on probation. The only two students who are still suspended over protests were those accused of spraying pro-Palestinian students during a demonstration in January, she said. The substance they sprayed, Foxx added, was also a “nontoxic gag spray,” even though Shafik had testified that it was an “odorous substance.”
Throughout the hearing, dozens of students in the hallway shouted “let the students in!” and “I am missing classes, let us in!”
Olivia Blythe, a student in Columbia’s School of Social Work who was in the hallway before the hearing, said Shafik and the administration’s handling of pro-Palestinian protests has been too harsh. She said she’s concerned for her classmates, and that Columbia has neglected to protect students’ free speech.
“President Minoche’s words here do not actually ensure the safety of Jewish students, particularly our anti-Zionist Jewish students,” Blythe said. “Who is protecting them while the university cosigns genocide?”
The audience inside the hearing room had many Jewish and pro-Israel students, several of whom wore yarmulkes that displayed the campus’s Chabad House logo and necklaces that read “bring them home” in English and Hebrew.
After the hearing, some of the Jewish students said they were disappointed in Shafik’s responses and that they’d hoped she was going to be more supportive of them. To Sonya Poznansky, a senior studying in Columbia’s dual-degree program with Tel Aviv University, much of what Shafik said during the hearing felt like it was only words, and that she wasn’t taking enough action on campus.
She said she and other Jewish students in the audience didn’t want to go back to campus given how unsafe they’ve felt over the past several months.
“It’s escalated to a point of being pro-terror, which is not legal in the United States,” Poznansky said. “It’s more than just students feeling uncomfortable. No, there are laws being broken, there are moral codes of conduct being broken from day one.”
At the end of the hearing, Foxx warned Shafik that the committee would be keeping a close eye on the work of Columbia leadership.
“While some changes have begun on campus, there is still a significant amount of work to be done, as we’ve heard today,” Foxx said. “We will be looking for answers to the questions that have been raised today in a very timely fashion and we are prepared to bring you back if we don’t see more tangible progress.”
Back in New York City, hundreds of pro-Palestinian demonstrators set up tents on the campus’s South Lawn. They were told by campus safety officers Wednesday morning that they would be suspended or forcibly removed if they hadn’t left the area by 11 a.m., the Columbia Daily Spectator reported. The students stayed, but were not arrested.
Around 7 p.m., protesters received notices from the university mandating that they end the demonstration and leave campus, according to the Spectator. Students who hadn’t complied by 9 p.m. could face interim suspensions.
