Latest news with #Shipman
Atlantic
5 days ago
- Politics
- Atlantic
Anti-Semitism Gets the DEI Treatment
To do the same thing over and over and expect a different result is one definition of insanity. According to Robert Shibley, a special counsel of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), it's also Columbia University's approach to addressing anti-Semitism on campus. On Tuesday, Claire Shipman, Columbia's acting president, announced in an email to the community that the university would take several steps to quell anti-Semitism on campus. Columbia will appoint Title VI and Title VII coordinators to review allegations of discrimination. It will launch new programming around anti-Jewish discrimination, send out regular messages affirming its zero-tolerance policy on hate, and use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of anti-Semitism for certain disciplinary proceedings. In her message, Shipman promised that the university would continue making reforms until it had stamped out anti-Semitism. 'In a recent discussion, a faculty member and I agreed that anti-Semitism at this institution has existed, perhaps less overtly, for a long while, and the work of dismantling it, especially through education and understanding, will take time,' she wrote. The message was notable for how closely it resembled the communications that university presidents have previously sent out about other forms of discrimination. Replace the references to 'anti-Semitism' with 'racism,' and Shipman's message could practically have been lifted from the statements of summer 2020. As university presidents contort themselves to respond to campus anti-Semitism, they seem to be replicating the DEI push of the past decade, bureaucracy and all. It's not just Columbia. Harvard University is also implementing new trainings, evaluating its administrative complaint structure, and adopting a more expansive definition of anti-Semitism. Franklin Foer: Columbia University's anti-Semitism problem Setting aside the question of insanity, Columbia's approach is risky: University leaders may be implementing reforms that aren't proven to work, or are proven not to work. Giving anti-Semitism the DEI treatment is also ironic: Universities are instituting these policies under pressure from the Trump administration, which is simultaneously engaged in an effort to root out DEI from governing and educational institutions across the country. Anti-Semitism is a real issue at Columbia. As my colleague Franklin Foer documented, university administrators slow-walked responses to anti-Jewish discrimination; such apathy directed at any other protected group would have led to scandal. In the days after Hamas's brutal attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, Columbia's student newspaper interviewed dozens of Jewish students about life on campus. Thirteen students said they had suffered attacks or harassment. Under President Donald Trump, campus anti-Semitism has also been a pretext to wage war on universities. In March, the Trump administration used Columbia's perceived deficiencies in combating anti-Semitism as an excuse to yank $400 million in research funding. It demanded far-reaching concessions as a precondition for getting the money back. Columbia soon acquiesced to the reforms, with only minor changes. But the administration still didn't restore the funding. The two parties have been locked in protracted negotiations ever since, though they are reportedly nearing a deal. Shipman's Tuesday announcement was one attempt among many to satisfy the administration. Assaf Zeevi, an Israeli professor at Columbia's business school, told me he was encouraged by the latest reforms. He cautioned, however, that these efforts would matter only if the university demonstrates that it will discipline students who harass their Jewish peers or violate protest policies. Otherwise, the recently announced measures are no more than lip service. (Columbia did not immediately provide comment.) Universities have built up their antidiscrimination apparatuses for decades now. Yet they seemed utterly ill-equipped to address anti-Semitism on their campuses. 'It suggests that whatever tactic universities were using and the huge growth in the bureaucracy dedicated to this hasn't been effective,' Shibley told me. 'I don't think there's any reason to assume that adding some coordinators or throwing more people at the problem is going to solve it.' Rose Horowitch: The era of DEI for conservatives has begun Ineffectiveness is one concern. Here's another: As the university sets up a new anti-Semitism bureaucracy, it runs the risk of repeating the overreach of the DEI movement. What began as a well-intentioned effort to address real issues of discrimination resulted in a proliferation of administrators who, in certain instances, evolved into a sort of speech police. David Bernstein, the founder of the North American Values Institute, has criticized DEI initiatives for flattening nuanced issues. 'I don't like the idea of training anybody in ideas,' he told me. 'Just as I'm critical of DEI programs for providing simplistic answers about power and privilege to complex issues, I'm worried that campus anti-Semitism training will use the same playbook.' The appointment of new Title VI coordinators and the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism could also tend in that direction. FIRE has opposed universities adopting the IHRA definition, arguing that it could be used to punish speech that merely, if harshly, criticizes Israel's government. Universities' existing policies are sufficient to punish anti-Semitic speech, Shibley said. The problem is that schools haven't enforced them. And then there's the fact that the Trump administration, even as it has focused on addressing anti-Semitism, has pushed universities to get rid of efforts that have the faintest whiff of DEI. The notion that some version of the DEI bureaucracy is appropriate for anti-Semitism and only anti-Semitism is nonsensical. 'Ultimately, the most important thing a university can do to deal with this anti-Semitism problem is to embrace the free expression of ideas and to make sure that they have faculty who embrace a genuine liberal education," Bernstein told me. The experiments in addressing anti-Semitism are likely to continue all summer and into the next academic year. 'Hopefully, some will work,' Shibley told me. 'I'm concerned, though, that many of them are going to cause government overreach and end up causing more problems than they solve.'
Chicago Tribune
6 days ago
- Politics
- Chicago Tribune
Columbia University adopts new definition of antisemitism, shuns pro-Palestinian group
Months into its fight to restore federal funding revoked by the Trump administration over antisemitism claims, Columbia University has adopted a new set of policies that include refusing to meet with a coalition of student protesters who pitched tents in support of Gaza. The embattled school also agreed to adopt a definition of antisemitism that recognizes some criticism of Israel as discriminatory toward Jewish students. The late Tuesday announcement comes days after Columbia was reportedly nearing an agreement with the federal government — though acting president Claire Shipman suggested any deal they may reach is 'only a starting point for change,' rather than bending to external demands. 'The fact that we've faced pressure from the government does not make the problems on our campuses any less real,' Shipman wrote to students and faculty. Under the newly outlined plans, the university leader said Columbia has not recognized and will not negotiate with Columbia University Apartheid Divest ('CUAD'), its representatives or allied student groups. It follows similar action taken by Barnard College, its sister school, in recent weeks. In spring 2024, CUAD took credit for the encampment that commandeered the main campus lawns, as its representatives met with university administrators over their demands to take down the tents. When talks failed, the college administration called the NYPD to clear the demonstration — twice. 'Organizations that promote violence or encourage disruptions of our academic mission are not welcome on our campuses and the University will not engage with them,' Shipman wrote. The announcement also said that Columbia's revised understanding of antisemitism will be based on what's known as the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Definition of Antisemitism. Colleges have increasingly used the framework to respond to campus protests — a development welcomed by many supporters of Israel but criticized by protesters who say it infringes on free speech. The definition states that some critiques of Israel as a Jewish state may cross a line into antisemitism, such as denying the Jewish people's right to self-determination or claiming that the existence of Israel is a racist endeavor. Comparing contemporary Israeli policy and that of Nazis would also be considered antisemitic under its terms. Adopting the IHRA antisemitism definition had been one of the Trump administration's prerequisites for resuming negotiations over the flow of federal funding. But Columbia had previously stopped short of fully embracing the approach in its disciplinary cases. 'The formal incorporation of this definition will strengthen our response to and our community's understanding of modern antisemitism,' Shipman said. CUAD acknowledged Shipman's email and her disavowal of the group on X, but reserved its most searing criticism for the new antisemitism definition. 'Columbia and Harvard adopting the IHRA definition of antisemitism is a bold step toward protecting students — from having to hear critiques of genocide, apparently,' the group said. 'Soon, the IHRA definition of antisemitism will be standard across higher ed. Not to fight hate, but to criminalize dissent.' In addition, Shipman announced the creation of two new positions, Title VI and Title VII Coordinators, to review and respond to reports of discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Those individuals will contribute to an annual report to the president and Board of Trustees and reviewable by the public. Columbia will also launch trainings by the Anti-Defamation League and several other national Jewish organizations and build out programs focused on constructive dialogue. Brian Cohen, executive director of the campus Hillel, welcomed the steps as recognizing a campus antisemitism problem and its impact on Jewish students' sense of safety and belonging. 'I hope this announcement marks the beginning of meaningful and sustained change,' Cohen said.
The Hill
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Columbia announces additional steps to combat antisemitism amid negotiations with Trump administration
Columbia University announced Tuesday additional steps it would take to combat campus antisemitism after months of negotiations with the Trump administration to undo cuts to its funding. Among the steps, the most controversial Columbia President Claire Shipman announced was the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. The definition is widely used among governments and other schools but has been criticized by left-leaning groups because it considers some anti-Zionism advocacy antisemitic. 'Columbia is committed to taking all possible steps to combat antisemitism and the University remains dedicated to ensuring that complaints of discrimination and harassment of all types, including complaints based on Jewish and Israeli identity, are treated in the same manner. Formally adding the consideration of the IHRA definition into our existing anti-discrimination policies strengthens our approach to combating antisemitism,' Shipman wrote. Other actions will include appointing Title VI and Title VII coordinators, additional antisemitism training for faculty, staff and students and affirming a zero-tolerance policy for hate and antisemitism on campus. Two people familiar with the situation told The New York Times a funding deal between Columbia and the administration could come as early as this week. It could include a hefty hundred-million dollar fine and further reforms on campus. 'Our work toward an agreement with the federal government has put a harsh spotlight on many of the difficult issues regarding discrimination and harassment we've seen on our campuses. The fact that we've faced pressure from the government does not make the problems on our campuses any less real; a significant part of our community has been deeply affected in negative ways,' Shipman wrote. 'In my view, any government agreement we reach is only a starting point for change. Committing to reform on our own is a more powerful path. It will better enable us to recognize our shortcomings and create lasting change,' she added. Columbia began cooperating with the federal government after it took away over $400 million in funding for alleged inaction on antisemitism.
Boston Globe
07-07-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Columbia tried to negotiate with the Trump administration. Here's what Harvard can learn from its efforts.
What did Columbia get in return? So far, not much. Though Trump's tone on Columbia has brightened, his administration still hit the school with a civil rights violation and threatened its accreditation. The canceled funding has not been restored. 'I see [Columbia] as conceding and for nothing; I see it as neglecting its values and opening the door for the administration to do the same to other institutions,' said Antoinette Flores, director of higher education accountability and quality at New America, a liberal-leaning Washington think tank. Advertisement Columbia's leadership has argued many policy shifts were reasonable responses to campus protests — particularly around the war in Gaza — that made Jewish and Muslim students deeply uncomfortable. Columbia's president, Claire Shipman, issued a statement June 23 acknowledging the university was 'facing the decimation of decades of research' because of Trump's cuts. She also insisted it hadn't capitulated to Trump. Advertisement 'Following the law and attempting to resolve a complaint is not capitulation. That narrative is incorrect,' Shipman said. A Columbia spokesperson did not address whether the school received any of the retracted $400 million, instead referring to Shipman's June statement. But researchers there said their work has become increasingly challenging, with no sign of when, or if, the funding will come back. Joshua Gordon, chair of Columbia's psychiatry program, said his department lost roughly $25 million and hasn't received renewals for existing grants or money for projects they've expensed. 'We are continuously told by the administration of Columbia University that negotiations with the federal government continue but other than that, we haven't been given any details,' Gordon said. Katherine Keyes, a Columbia professor of epidemiology, said her department scrambled to place researchers no longer appointed at Columbia elsewhere and cobble together stabilization funds to retain existing staff. Funds for her research on how environmental factors affect young people's mental health were terminated in March, not for cause or misconduct but 'because of allegations against the institution' — a fact she called a 'difficult pill to swallow.' Harvard's and Columbia's difficulties in making deals with the federal government come as other schools implement dramatic changes to avoid Trump's wrath. The University of Virginia president last month resigned after the Justice Department demanded his departure to end an investigation into the school's diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. The University of Pennsylvania this past week agreed to ban transgender women from participating in women's sports and to strip Lia Thomas, a transgender swimmer, of her records and titles. For Harvard, the costs of the standoff grow by the day: Trump has announced cuts at Harvard that dwarf Columbia's. Though Harvard won some early court victories, the federal government retains many points of leverage to make university administrators' lives more miserable. Advertisement Also at risk is the public approval Harvard gained for fighting Trump, support by demonstrating the opposition to Trump. 'It's hard to imagine a successful negotiation for Harvard because both sides have to appear to win — the administration in Washington wants to be able to declare victory, and so does Harvard,' said Larry Ladd, a former Harvard budget chief. In many ways, Columbia's and Harvard's stories are similar: Both campuses were for two years roiled by student protests over the war in Gaza. Both faced investigations over allegedly allowing unchecked harassment of Jewish and Israeli students. And both underwent leadership changes: Columbia's and Harvard's presidents in place at the beginning of the turbulent 2023-24 school year both departed before students returned last fall. After the federal government said it would withdraw roughly $400 million promised to Columbia, the school made changes in March, such as banning masks used to hide protesters' identities and appointing a new administrator to oversee departments studying the Middle East. Those did not appear to stop the onslaught. The National Institutes of Health in April directed officials, without notice, to stop issuing grants to schools including Columbia. In May, Columbia announced it would lay off nearly 180 staff members with federally funded salaries. Then, the Health and Human Services Department in May found Columbia violated civil rights law by 'showing deliberate indifference' to hostility toward Jewish students. In June, the Department of Education recommended challenging Columbia's accreditation — jeopardizing even more federal resources. Advertisement Officials with Columbia and the Trump administration acknowledged talks are ongoing. Still, Education Secretary Linda McMahon told The Wall Street Journal Columbia has 'made such good progress' and the sides 'possibly are getting close to a negotiated resolution.' Trump in May said Columbia was out of the 'hot seat,' adding it was 'very anti-Semitic and lots of other things but they're working with us on finding a solution.' Harvard, by comparison, 'wants to fight, they want to show how smart they are, and they're getting their ass kicked,' he said. Harvard, meanwhile, earlier this spring was in talks with Trump officials about how to restore funding. But after officials sent the school their demands in April, president Alan Garber said Harvard wouldn't allow the government to dictate its decisions, a move celebrated by academics and Trump critics nationwide. Harvard has since waged several court battles against the administration, which took aim at Harvard's international students and nearly all its federal research funding. Late last month, the administration Political observers said Harvard, as it re-enters negotiations, has more advantages than Columbia: It benefits from a larger endowment and recognizable brand. Trump officials are eager to work toward a deal there, seeing it as the strongest place to influence higher education. But in some ways, Harvard, along with other higher education leaders, may have more to lose if Garber gives in. 'Because we put so much faith in their leadership, because of the size of their endowment, because it's the oldest university in the country, because it's Harvard, it really opens the floodgates for the Trump administration to have massive incursions into the operations of higher education," said Todd Wolfson, president of the American Association of University Professors. Advertisement The sweeping nature of the government's approach — and uncertainty about what will be enough — complicates negotiations. Attacks have come from all corners, from the Health and Human Services to Homeland Security departments. 'You can't negotiate with a party that is inconsistent and unreliable, and that appears to be the difficulty Columbia had,' said Ladd, now with the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. Harvard and Columbia are 'in a precarious position, but they have both opened lines of communication and can credibly claim they have taken some significant action,' said Rick Hess, director of education policy studies at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute in D.C. The question, he said, is 'will that be enough that they can reach common ground with the administration and, if they do, can they spin it back to their campus communities as a principled agreement rather than capitulation?' Anjali Huynh can be reached at
New York Post
02-07-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Columbia pres's private email to friends on offensive WhatsApp messages: 'I promise to do better.'
Columbia University's president issued a groveling apology, saying she regrets a text suggesting removal of Jewish board member and a separate one urging the school to get an 'Arab' board member 'quickly.' A House investigation dug up the texts sent by acting president Claire Shipman in January 2024 amidst anti-Israel campus protests where she advocated removing Shoshana Shendelman from the board of trustees. Shendelman was one of the most vocal members against harassment of Jewish students, but in the private texts Shipman agreed with a text saying she could be a 'mole,' called her 'extraordinarily unhelpful,' and suggested they 'get somebody from the middle east,' according to the Committee on Education and Workforce's report. Advertisement 7 Columbia president Claire Shipman suggested the school get an Arab board member 'quickly.' AP The Post obtained a private email sent Wednesday afternoon by Shipman to 'trusted groups of friends and colleagues' in which she said she 'made a mistake' and '[promised] to do better,' amid the college losing over $400 million in federal funding for not doing enough to fight antisemitism. 'Let me be clear: The things I said in a moment of frustration and stress were wrong,' Shipman wrote. Advertisement 'They do not reflect how I feel… It was a moment of immense pressure, over a year and a half ago, as we navigated some deeply turbulent times. But that doesn't change the fact that I made a mistake.' 7 Shipman agreed with a colleague who suggested Shendelman might be a 'mole.' 7 Private texts sent by Claire Shipman were highly critical of board member Shoshana Shendelman (pictured). Columbia University The email was shared with The Post by an anonymous source at the university. A second person with knowledge of the matter confirmed the legitimacy of the letter to The Post and said it was sent to around a dozen individuals. Advertisement It comes after Representatives Elise Stefanik (R-NY) and Tim Walberg (R-MI), chairs of the Committee on Education and Workforce, sent a letter to Shipman on Tuesday, which included private WhatsApp messages sent by Shipman to colleagues in the wake of October 7th. In another message Shipman said she was 'so, so tired' of Shendelman, a Jewish biotech executive. 7 The Post obtained a private email sent by Claire Shipman apologizing for the texts. 'These exchanges raise the question of why you appeared to be in favor of removing one of the board's most outspoken Jewish advocates at a time when Columbia students were facing a shocking level of fear and hostility,' Stefanik and Walberg wrote in their letter, requesting 'clarifications' on the messages. Advertisement In her private email, Shipman said she apologized directly 'to the person named in my texts' — presumably referring to Shendelman. 'I have tremendous respect and appreciation for that board member, whose voice on behalf of Columbia's Jewish community is critically important,' she wrote. 'I should not have written those things, and I am sorry.' 7 Inflammatory messages sent by Columbia President Claire Shipman were unearthed by a House Committee investigation. The messages stretch back to late 2023, shortly after the Oct. 7th terror attack on Israel by Hamas, when Shipman was the co-chair of Columbia's board of trustees. In a December 2023 message to then-president Minouche Shafik, Shipman referred to 'the capital [sic] hill nonsense,' presumably a reference to Shafik's being hauled before a House committee to testify about campus antisemitism. 'Congress's efforts to ensure the safety and security of Jewish students — who make up almost a quarter of your campus population — is not 'capital hill nonsense,'' Stefanik and Walberg pushed back. 7 Messages beteween Shipman (right) and former president Minouche Shafik (left) were included in the letter. Getty Images The revelations come as Columbia is attempting to keep federal funding, after the Trump administration yanked roughly $400 million in grants and contracts from the elite school in March over its failure to stamp out antisemitism on campus. Advertisement Shipman has also adhered to a list of Trump's demands by agreeing to a slew of policy changes, including a mask ban and allowing campus cops to arrest students or boot them off campus when deemed appropriate. In her private letter, Shipman said that the university is 'committed to restoring our critical partnership with the federal government as quickly as possible, so that thousands of our faculty and researchers and students can get back to the essential work they do on behalf of humanity.' 7 New York Representative Elise Stefanik sent a letter to Columbia University on Tuesday. AP Advertisement She also acknowledged a potential breach of trust with the Columbia community. A Columbia spokesperson told The Post the texts 'are now being published out of context and reflect a particularly difficult moment in time for the University.' 'Acting President Claire Shipman has been vocally and visibly committed to eradicating antisemitism on campus; the work underway at the university to create a safe and welcoming environment for all community members makes that plain,' the spokesperson said.
