Columbia University has been no stranger to controversy, especially since the start of last spring when anti-Israel protests erupted and changed what normalcy was at the Ivy League university.
From student activists taking over an academic building in the spring of 2024 to the staged protest inside a university library this spring, Columbia has seemingly not gone a single week without being in the news for student activists’ actions. However, when you look at student actions being taken, such as how students disrupted a “History of Modern Israel” class at the beginning of the semester or how the university has responded to uncontrolled activism by offering “safety escorts” for Jewish students walking on campus, you have to wonder why some outrageous instances are still occurring at Columbia even though it has been a whole year since protests initially broke out.
Students at Columbia are probably thinking the same thing, especially since the Trump administration pulled $400 million in contracts and grants with the university as a result of what it calls inaction from Columbia administrators relating to cracking down on antisemitic actions on campus.
To be clear, I’m not claiming that Columbia is the only university that has issues with antisemitism on campus, but I am highlighting the severity of them — to where the federal government is now stepping in. The federal government shouldn’t have to babysit private institutions; in fact, it sets a precedent that could be abused down the line. But for the issues today, it is arguably necessary.
The U.S. Department of Education’s (DOE) website states that the funding pull came after the university’s administrators and former interim-president Katrina Armstrong did not respond to a notification by the Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism of a “comprehensive review of the university’s federal contracts and grants in light of ongoing investigations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.” The DOE website states that the university had seen “Chaos and anti-Semitic harassment” persist on campus despite administrators being conscious of the notification by the Task Force.
The DOE’s website adds that “The decisive action by the DOJ, HHS, ED, and GSA to cancel Columbia’s grants and contracts serves as a notice to every school and university that receives federal dollars that this administration will use all the tools at its disposal to protect Jewish students and end anti-Semitism on college campuses.”
Though the funding may return if Columbia complies with federal government directions to change university policies to benefit all students, there are no assurances, given questions now raised by Armstrong’s recently announced resignation from her interim role. Regardless of who the face of the institution is, administrators at Columbia owe it to their institution to commit to sensible actions to earn back the funding. They also owe it to other institutions to set an example for how to deal with the federal government’s demands, especially since Harvard University now has a similar investigation to Columbia’s on its hands regarding antisemitism.
Democratic senator John Fetterman echoed this rhetoric on X, where he stated once the funding pull was announced, “Columbia let antisemitism run amok to cater to lunatic fringe and paid provocateurs. Leadership allowed those assholes to take over the campus and terrorize Jewish students. Now, Columbia pays for its failure and I support that.”
Just as Columbia’s encampments and associated anti-Israel protests came to be the face of all university protests, the Trump administration’s actions against Columbia are likely meant to be a warning shot to university administrators across the U.S.
Columbia should not be the sole face of antisemitism in the United States, especially since antisemitism has been prevalent at not just Columbia, but also schools like Yale, the University of Southern California, the University of Michigan and the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) for the past year.
Most importantly, the message that the Trump administration is sending with the $400 million being put in limbo is not that students aren’t free to exercise their First Amendment right to freedom of expression, but rather that they must do so in legal, responsible, proactive and disciplined ways. The message from the Trump administration is also meant to hit home with administrators whose jobs are to ensure that campuses are safe for all students by keeping potential or active threats in check and at bay.
Attacking a Jewish student for wearing Jewish clothing, like what happened at Yale, is not legal; it is antisemitic. Vandalizing the home of a university regent is not activism; it is a degrading act of “antisemitic intimidation,” as put by the University of Michigan in a statement following this occurrence in 2024. Drawing swastikas on chalkboards, waving flags that say “Israelis are Native 2 HELL,” putting the star of David next to a sculpture of a pig holding a bag of money or other countless incidents that took place at UCLA during anti-Israel protests, are blatantly sick and disgusting.
But, despite how objectionable the UCLA example, or similar occurrences, might be, they are not necessarily unlawful and could be argued to be offensive hate speech that is protected under the First Amendment. But just because it might be protected does not mean it doesn’t violate university policies, or that students should get away with them. The point here is that good-faith efforts to protest don’t seem to be happening, and what these examples show is that they have not been happening on college campuses.
While Columbia administrators, like both former presidents Minouche Shafik and Katrina Armstrong, are not responsible for what happens at other schools, they are responsible for how they let a situation that the nation was closely watching get out of hand. Their inaction led to Jewish students receiving death threats, being spat on or pinned against walls and even chased out of their dorm rooms, as a report from Columbia’s Task Force on Antisemitism revealed in August of 2024 had occurred on campus.
It is not a secret that Columbia was the face of the 2024 protests, especially since the first encampment that took over a campus lawn inspired students at other schools to do the same after Columbia received national attention from the mainstream media. Though you can’t change the past, what you can do is ask productive questions, like wondering if antisemitic actions across the U.S. could have been avoided if Columbia had acted differently. After all, antisemitism has spiked almost 400% in the U.S. since Oct. 7, 2023, according to the Anti-Defamation League, and you have to wonder how much of it could be credited to the inaction, ineptitude or mishandling by those in charge at higher education institutions.
Michael Duke, GSB ’26, is a business administration major from Scottsdale, Ariz.
