31 August 2024

Columbia University has just published a report on regulating student protests that accepts complaints by Israeli and pro-Israel students of abusive treatment and equates fundamental criticism of Israel with antisemitism. Its recommendations are certain to stifle Palestinian human rights advocacy. Here is the link to the report: Task Force on Antisemitism Report 2 (columbia.edu)

Here is the Executive Summary:

The demonstrations that roiled our campuses during the past academic year uncovered deep
disagreements about the mission of our University. During those months, consensus around the
University’s formal rules and informal norms of behavior broke down, interfering with our
charge to educate students and engage in research.
In addition, the testimonies of hundreds of Jewish and Israeli students have made clear that the
University community has not treated them with the standards of civility, respect, and fairness it
promises to all its students.
After October 7, many Jewish and Israeli students began to report multiple instances of
harassment, verbal abuse and ostracism, and in some cases physical violence. Given the volume
of these reports, the Task Force invited all students—not just Jewish and Israeli students—to tell
us their stories. Over the course of the spring, nearly five hundred students offered testimonials,
at over 20 listening sessions, which provided invaluable insights into the campus climate during
these troubled times. These student stories are heartbreaking, and make clear that the University
has an obligation to act.
This report recounts student experiences in a wide variety of venues—day-to-day encounters,
including dorm life and social media; clubs; and the classroom. Unfortunately, some members of
the Columbia community have been unwilling to acknowledge the antisemitism many students
have experienced—the way repeated violations of University policy and norms have affected
them, and the compliance issues this climate has created with respect to federal, state, and local
anti-discrimination law. Many of the events reported in the testimonials took place well before
the establishment of the encampments and the takeover of Hamilton Hall; the experiences
reported during that period were even more extreme.
We heard about troubling incidents from a diverse group of Jewish students from across the
political spectrum; and, even more pronouncedly, from Israeli students, whose national origin
both make them members of a specifically protected class under federal law and frequently has
caused them to be singled out for particularly terrible treatment.
Students also reported that their efforts to seek redress from the University for the hostility and
bigotry they were encountering were often unsuccessful. Many students did not understand how
to report these incidents. Although some faculty and staff responded with compassion and
determination, others minimized the concerns of these students, reacting sluggishly and
ineffectively even to the most clear-cut violations. Even students who had successfully reported
an incident spoke of a recurring lack of enforcement of existing University rules and policies.
The experiences of these students demonstrated that there is an urgent need to reshape everyday
social norms across the campuses of Columbia University. We need to promote a richer ethic of
pluralism, which would encourage greater tolerance of and respect for differences in religion,
culture, and national origin. If we were really to succeed in promoting tolerance, students would
come to understand and value these differences.
But we are a long way from there. The problems we found are serious and pervasive. We
recognize that the University is not monolithic, and the environment at some schools is
especially challenging. A wide range of responses is needed—indeed, a broader range than we
discuss in this report (which focuses on training, defining antisemitism, reporting, and rules for
student groups) and in our last report (which focused on the rules governing protests). We do not
want to give the impression that the recommendations here are all that is required. We will
address other issues in future reports.
In this report we draw on the many accounts shared with us over the past several months to
produce a working definition of antisemitism. Instead of relying on an existing definition, we
crafted a working definition that is rooted in recent experiences at Columbia:
Antisemitism is prejudice, discrimination, hate, or violence directed at Jews, including
Jewish Israelis. Antisemitism can manifest in a range of ways, including as ethnic slurs,
epithets, and caricatures; stereotypes; antisemitic tropes and symbols; Holocaust denial;
targeting Jews or Israelis for violence or celebrating violence against them; exclusion or
discrimination based on Jewish identity or ancestry or real or perceived ties to Israel; and
certain double standards applied to Israel.
This working definition draws on experiences of many Jewish and Israeli students, who were on
the receiving end of ethnic slurs, stereotypes about supposedly dangerous Israeli veterans,
antisemitic tropes about Jewish wealth and hidden power, threats and physical assaults, exclusion
of Zionists from student groups, and inconsistent standards. We propose this definition for use in
training and education, not for discipline or as a means for limiting free speech or academic
freedom.
This report also identifies significant problems in university policy and practice and makes
recommendations for fixing flawed administrative systems, improving campus climate, and
building consensus for a more inclusive and pluralistic university. Specifically, we recommend
anti-bias and inclusion trainings for students, resident advisers, resident assistants, teaching
assistants, student-facing staff, and faculty. In a community dedicated to freedom of speech and
pluralism, we must prepare students with different views and backgrounds to engage with each
other. We must encourage mutual respect, tolerance, civility, and an open learning environment.
We also recommend in-person workshops about antisemitism and Islamophobia, as well as a
range of optional training and workshops for others in our community, including on implicit bias
and stereotypes, bystander interventions, and having difficult conversations.
Given the urgent need to train administrators who play critical roles in responding to student
needs, we also suggest a range of trainings in dispute resolution.
As part of this effort, we recommend that the Interim President and Provost establish a CrossSchool Committee that includes all schools at Columbia, along with Barnard College and
Teachers College, to share information and establish a baseline standard for trainings,
workshops, and website information for all schools. The Committee should aim to overcome the
problem of decentralization within Columbia, which is a barrier to maintaining common
objectives across the many spaces shared by undergraduate and graduate students.
We also recommend that the University establish a repository for best practices in anti-bias and
inclusion trainings and that it develop a plan for evaluating these programs.
Customized trainings aimed at specific constituencies are particularly important, including first
year orientation and new student orientation for graduate programs—a recent area of focus for
University Life—and new faculty orientation at all Columbia schools, including affiliate schools,
Barnard College, and Teachers College. We recognize that University Life has been working to
update and improve its training for student orientation.
We call attention to the need to train teaching assistants (TAs) in sensitivity to bias, exclusion,
and antisemitism. Currently, the online course required for all Columbia TAs, available through
the Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action (EOAA) website, lacks guidelines on diversity,
inclusion, and bias. TAs need guidance on how to respond to classroom scenarios that stray into
discrimination and bias; currently, they are told that no single best practice exists. We
recommend giving attention to topics related to race, religion, and national origin in all their
complexity. We point to several excellent models offered by other universities in guiding TAs
and first-time instructors.
Resident assistants and advisers (RAs) are another group in need of customized training; we
offer suggestions for how RAs can foster better attention to inclusion, identification of bias, and
elimination of harmful behavior signaling derision and hatred. RAs must fully understand their
role as leaders in inclusion: they need to be prepared to listen with respect and to mediate
conflicts.
In place of the confusing multiplicity of reporting structures that currently exist, we suggest ways
of revamping procedures so that students are not discouraged from speaking with advisors and
administrators about prejudicial treatment. Transparency and consistency in how we handle
student reports of bias and exclusion are of the utmost importance if we want students to share
their experiences. Our aim is for students to engage with faculty or staff who can resolve
conflicts before situations rise to the level of legal violations. Antisemitism complaints deserve
careful attention from deans and administrators, alongside all forms of bigotry and
discrimination.
We also recommend ways to ensure that student groups contribute to the University’s pluralist
mission and comply with anti-discrimination law. Unfortunately, we have heard from many
Jewish and Israeli students who have been excluded from student groups because of their Zionist
beliefs. This is not acceptable. Student groups must be inclusive, with membership limited only
for reasons connected to their mission. Student groups generally should not issue statements
unrelated to their missions, so they can welcome students with diverse views and
backgrounds. Groups also should have a robust consultation process before issuing statements or
joining coalitions. To be clear, there should not be any limits on the free speech rights of a
group’s members. They must be free to speak about any issue as long as they are speaking for
themselves, not for the group.