Columbia University's interim president resigns
Following the announcement, the school's board appointed Claire Shipman to serve as acting president. Armstrong, the second Columbia leader to step down in less than a year, will return to lead the school's Irving Medical Center, according to a news release.
'It has been a singular honor to lead Columbia University in this important and challenging time. This is one of the world's great universities, in its most vital city, and I am proud to have worked with extraordinary faculty, students, and alumni,' Armstrong wrote in a statement. 'But my heart is with science, and my passion is with healing. That is where I can best serve this University and our community moving forward.'
The leadership shake-up at the influential school comes after the federal government axed $400 million in grants to Columbia University following an antisemitism investigation into the institution.
'Universities must comply with all federal antidiscrimination laws if they are going to receive federal funding,' Education Secretary Linda McMahon said earlier this month. 'For too long, Columbia has abandoned that obligation to Jewish students studying on its campus.'
Just over a week ago, the New York City school announced that it agreed to the administration's list of demands as it sought to regain access to the $400 million in federal funds. Still, two education groups sued the Trump administration over the funding pause, which caused an uproar in the higher education community.
In its concession, the school said it would ban face masks unless they are utilized for medical or religious reasons. In those cases, students need to present their Columbia ID if asked. The university also stated that it would hire more campus police officers and allow them to arrest students.
Under the new regulations, Columbia will also adopt the updated definition of antisemitism and pick a new senior vice provost to oversee its Center for Palestine Studies and the departments of Middle East, South Asian and African studies, the school said.
McMahon lauded the university for its 'appropriate cooperation,' in a joint statement with the Department of Health and Human Services and General Services Administration.
'We look forward to a lasting resolution,' she wrote.
Armstrong has served as the school's interim president since August last year when she took over for Minouche Shafik, who resigned over her handling of student protests against Israel's war with Palestinian militant group Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
'Now is not the time for Columbia University to regress as it works to combat the rampant antisemitism plaguing the school. So far Columbia has largely failed to uphold its commitment to Jewish students and faculty — leaving them to face harassment, intimidation, and even assault,' House Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) said in a Friday evening statement, shared on social platform X.
He added that the school's administrators 'must put in the work to combat this evil.'
'Ms. Shipman, while we wish you all good success, we will be watching closely,' Walberg wrote.
The news comes as the Trump administration has targeted those linked to the campus protests at several universities in recent weeks — leading to several arrests, visas being revoked and other legal turmoil.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
6 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Anti-Zionism is antisemitism — university leaders settle the question
For too long, the debate over antisemitism on college campuses has bogged down over whether anti-Zionism is antisemitism. Endless ink has been spilled over the distinction (or not) between the two. Last week, in their testimony to the House Committee on Education & Workforce, UC Berkeley Chancellor Rich Lyons, City University of New York Chancellor Félix V. Matos Rodríguez and Georgetown interim President Robert M. Groves cut through all this academic hairsplitting. 'Is denying the Jewish people their rights to self-determination … antisemitism? Yes or no?' asked Rep. Burgess Owens (R-Utah). All three university leaders replied simply and unequivocally: 'Yes.' The right to Jewish self-determination is a textbook definition of Zionism. The clarity with which the university officials pegged anti-Zionism as antisemitic is much-needed and long overdue. For years, progressives have raised consciousness about the need to recognize and repudiate bigoted dog whistles, microaggressions and misgendering. Yet many of those same progressives have been shockingly silent when it comes to decrying the macroaggressions of antisemitism that have become increasingly commonplace at anti-Israel protests. They've insisted that the now-familiar chants — 'From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free!' 'We don't want no two states! We want all of '48!'— are not antisemitic, just anti-Zionist, with some who are Jewish concurring and providing cover. Yet just as there can be 'racism without racists' — that is, racist results without racist intents — so too can there be antisemitism without antisemites. Not all anti-Zionists are antisemites, but anti-Zionism, in its most basic form — denying to the Jewish people the right to self-determination, a right recognized as inherent to countless others, including Palestinians — is itself a form of antisemitism. Moreover, because anti-Zionism singles out the Jewish state alone for elimination — among the dozens of ethnonational or ethnoreligious states in the world, including myriad Islamic ones — that, too, makes it a form of antisemitism. Declaring anti-Zionism to be antisemitic, as the university leaders did, was an important development for the dignity of Jewish students, one that echoed and amplified a federal district court's preliminary injunction last year that said UCLA could not allow anti-Israel activists to exclude 'Jewish students … because they refused to denounce their faith,' of which Zionism was a central component, from parts of the campus, as happened during protests against the Israel-Hamas war. Zionism, at its core, is a belief in Israel's right to sovereignty as a Jewish state on part of the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people. That's a millennia-old article of faith for Judaism, as reflected, for example, in daily Jewish prayers, the Passover Seder and the ritual of breaking a glass at weddings. Those claiming the mantle of Zionism for far more aggressive or exclusionary aims don't change that core fact, nor do those treating Zionism as a uniquely malevolent expression of national liberation or nation-building. Recognizing anti-Zionism as a manifestation of antisemitism is an important step forward for combating the discrimination and ostracism that many Jewish students have experienced for expressing their support for Israel's right to exist in the face of those who call for its elimination. Such recognition, in turn, can help concentrate campus conflicts about Israel and Palestinians on what matters most: fruitful debate over Israel's actions (including its prosecution of the war in Gaza) rather than fruitless shouting matches over Israel's existence and neo-McCarthyite litmus tests ('Are you now or have you ever been a Zionist?'). As this happens, we would be well-served to cease and desist using the terms 'Zionism' and 'anti-Zionism,' except as historical artifacts. After all, 'Zionism' refers to the aspiration to create a nation that is now nearly 80 years old. And anti-Zionism thus perpetuates a fantasy that Israel's long-settled place among the family of nations is still open for debate. It isn't, any more than, say, the existence of Russia under Putin or the United States under Trump, however much we might deplore their policies, is open for debate. We owe the Berkeley, CUNY and Georgetown leaders a great debt of gratitude for helping to elevate the intractable campus conflicts about Israel and the Palestinians to a higher plane. Mark Brilliant is an associate professor of history and American studies at UC Berkeley.
The Hill
6 minutes ago
- The Hill
Bernanke, Yellen: Trump's Fed pressure could fuel inflation
Former Federal Reserve Chairs Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen condemned President Trump's pressure campaign against its current chief, Jerome Powell, warning it could permanently damage the U.S. economy. In a Monday op-ed in The New York Times, the former Fed leaders urged Trump to respect the independence of the central bank and choose a replacement for Powell who would do the same. 'President Trump, like all Americans, is entitled to express his views on monetary policy. He will have a chance to put his stamp on the Federal Reserve by nominating someone to succeed Mr. Powell when his term ends next spring,' Bernanke and Yellen wrote. 'In the interest of the U.S. economy, we urge that he select an individual who will keep an appropriate distance between the Fed and short-term politics, someone who is committed to preserving the Fed's independence in monetary policy decision making.' Powell has less than a year left in his second term as Fed chair, which is set to end in May, and Trump has been eager to show him the door. While the president has waffled on whether to fire Powell — which would be a legally dubious and financially risky move — Trump is almost certain to nominate a replacement who will be loyal to his agenda. Trump has berated Powell for months for refusing to slash interest rates — something the Fed chair cannot do unilaterally — as the U.S. government faces steep borrowing costs on the soaring national debt. The president has urged the Fed to cut rates by amounts only seen during economic crises, even with unemployment close to record lows. While some Fed officials have expressed support for mild rate cuts, not a single member of the central bank supports cutting rates to the levels Trump has suggested. Few, if any economists outside the administration have supported Trump's call for stimulative interest rates as well. Bernanke and Yellen said that regardless of Trump's support for 'a radical reduction in interest rates,' he must allow the Fed to make its own decisions based on data, not political pressure, or risk serious consequences. The former Fed chairs pointed specifically to previous instances in which the Fed and other central banks adjusted interest rates to help fiscal authorities manage the national debt, which allowed inflation to spiral out of control. 'If investors and the public see that monetary policy is being used to facilitate government borrowing, they lose confidence that inflation will stay low. As a result, regular savers and investors in U.S. debt demand higher interest rates to compensate for the likely erosion of their capital,' they wrote. 'Ironically, forcing monetary policy to help finance deficits actually drives up borrowing costs for everyone, including home buyers and businesses, as well as the government.'
The Hill
6 minutes ago
- The Hill
Epstein accuser says she asked FBI twice to look into Trump
A woman who accused Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell of sexually assaulting her says she told the FBI twice to look into President Trump, The New York Times reported Sunday. The woman, Maria Farmer, told the Times that she asked the FBI, along with the New York City Police Department, to broadly examine people in Epstein's circles, including Trump, in 1996. She followed up again, she told the newspaper, after the FBI re-interviewed her about Epstein 10 years later. She told the Times she had 'no evidence of criminal wrongdoing' by associates of Epstein but suggested law enforcement broaden their scope because Epstein's activities, while he built a stable of famous friends, disturbed her. White House spokesperson Steven Cheung called the reporting 'recycled, old fake news of the highest order.' The report follows several weeks of political furor over previous promises by Trump officials to release the 'Epstein files,' a body of investigative documents related to the disgraced financier. It's not clear what could be in the files, but many Democrats have hoped that they could shed light on the president's relationship to the convicted sex offender. Farmer told the Times she asked law enforcement to look into Trump because of an interaction she had with him in 1995, which she has previously described publicly. Farmer, 'as she was preparing to work for Epstein,' said she was called into Epstein's office late one night and arrived wearing running shorts, the Times recounted. Trump, Farmer said, stared at her in a manner that made her feel uncomfortable. Epstein then entered the room and told Trump, 'no, no. She's not here for you,' she added, according to the Times's report. The White House disputed Farmer's account. 'The President was never in his office. The fact is that the President kicked him out of his club for being a creep,' Cheung said in a statement to The Hill. Farmer worked for Epstein in 1995-96, the Times reported, 'initially to acquire art on his behalf but then later to oversee the comings and goings of girls, young women and celebrities at the front entrance of his Upper East Side townhouse.' The relationship between Trump and Epstein appears to have been strained ever since a real estate dispute over a Palm Beach mansion in 2004. The New York Times's report follows an article by The Wall Street Journal that Trump had written Epstein a 'bawdy' 50th birthday card. Trump has denied the reporting and sued the Journal last week. Republicans have coalesced behind his criticisms. Trump late last week asked the Department of Justice to unseal the grand jury transcripts in the Epstein case. Additionally, a largely symbolic effort by congressional Republicans to call on the administration to release documents related to Epstein has also been put on hold, Politico reported Monday. Democrats have sought to seize on the political division and are pushing a petition that would force a binding floor vote. That effort has garnered some Republican support.
