University President Minouche Shafik and interim Provost Dennis Mitchell announced on Wednesday four initiatives designed to “reinvest in Columbia’s values and mission” amid a surge in campus activism related to the Israel-Hamas war and a rise in antisemitism, Islamophobia, and anti-Arab hate.
The initiatives include listening forums hosted by the Office of the President to provide opportunities for students to communicate directly with senior University administrators, including Shafik; a “Dialogue Across Difference” initiative designed to “strengthen the critical skills necessary to confront competing viewpoints and to hold challenging conversations with mutual respect”; and an enhanced reporting initiative “to make reporting more comfortable and to ensure a rapid response process for allegations of hate speech, harassment, and other forms of disruptive behavior.”
Shafik and Mitchell also announced a review of University event policies and the Rules of University Conduct—both of which have seen heightened attention amid conversations regarding freedom of expression, academic freedom, and faculty and student self-governance—in collaboration with the University Senate, student leaders, faculty, and other affiliates.
“This institution is an extraordinary place, where the best minds, for 269 years, have devoted themselves to research, teaching, learning, and global engagement with extraordinary expertise, determination, and compassion,” Shafik and Mitchell wrote. “This is a call to rededicate ourselves to that vital work, and to move ahead, with courage and conviction, to build a community where all of us can learn, work, and thrive.”
Alongside the four announced initiatives, the University will also develop a new group to examine the historical and contemporary “drivers of various forms of bias and intolerance, in particular anti-Islamic bias and anti-Arab racism.” The group will produce recommendations for addressing the perpetuation of these ideas to bolster “a culture of respect for everyone in the University community.”
The listening forums will give students and administrators a space to “foster the kind of open but respectful dialogue that is so essential to our shared values and mission,” Shafik and Mitchell wrote. They also detailed planned programming and opportunities included in the Dialogue Across Difference initiative, such as a “Week of Dialogue” to be hosted in mid-February and seed grant programs for students and faculty to “support the creation of organic collaborative initiatives” and “empower faculty, staff, and students to develop new forums and approaches for learning and dialogue.”
The sentiment continues an outward administrative emphasis on open dialogue among students and faculty. The School of International and Public Affairs hosted an event earlier this month titled “The War in Gaza: Constructive Campus Conversations,” during which Shafik and SIPA Dean Keren Yarhi-Milo encouraged civil discourse on the Israel-Hamas war.
After the event, Shafik told Spectator that she “would like to see more discussion and less protest.”
Shafik and Mitchell cited in their announcement a statement signed by 18 deans of Columbia’s schools and faculties, which addresses campus activism, freedom of expression, and recent criticisms leveled against the University for its handling of campus responses to the Israel-Hamas war.
“As anyone who knows this university has come to expect, there is no consensus about particular actions taken by university administration, groups on and off campus, and individuals in our community,” the statement reads. “What we do know is that in the last two months, we have struggled to fulfill our fundamental role as an academic commons where the most difficult issues can be discussed with openness and rigor.”
The statement discusses “campus culture” and cites specific chants used by pro-Palestinian activists, calling on community members to “acknowledge that hearing chanted phrases such as ‘by any means necessary,’ ‘from the river to the sea,’ or calls for an ‘intifada’—irrespective of intentions and provenance—is experienced by many Jewish, Israeli, and other members of our community as antisemitic and deeply hurtful.”
The statement also urges readers to acknowledge “that the fear of being labeled as antisemitic or as a supporter of terrorism for expressing anguish about the loss of Palestinian lives in Gaza or the West Bank makes people fearful for expressing their concerns.”
Students and faculty have raised concerns regarding academic freedom and freedom of expression on campus following the suspension of the Columbia chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace on Nov. 10, the cancellations of multiple events regarding the Israel-Hamas war, and several policy changes at Barnard and Columbia made without student or faculty consultation.
The rules review initiative addresses the controversy surrounding changes made to University event policies 17 days before they were cited in SJP and JVP’s suspension. Gerald Rosberg, senior executive vice president and chair of the Special Committee on Campus Safety, confirmed these changes at the Nov. 17 University Senate plenary after Spectator first reported that the University had altered its event policy webpages.
Shafik and Mitchell wrote that the review will look at University event policies and the Rules of University Conduct to ensure “that University policies and rules that apply to demonstrations, protests, sit-ins, vigils, and other events are clear and accessible and provide the means to address discrimination and harassment, and that the enforcement process around those rules and policies is fair, consistent, and transparent.”
The Student Governing Board declared noncooperation with the “contested” University event policy on Dec. 7. The University Senate passed a resolution on Dec. 8 recommending five changes to the updated event policy to “not place an undue burden on free expression on campus.”
Shafik and Mitchell highlighted section 440 of the Rules of University Conduct, which grants the University the ability to “reasonably” regulate “the time, place, and manner of certain forms of public expression” and “restrict expression that constitutes a genuine threat of harassment, that unjustifiably invades an individual’s privacy, or that falsely defames a specific individual.”
The Rules of University Conduct were established following the 1968 campus protests against the Vietnam War and the planned construction of a gymnasium in Morningside Park. The University Senate—also formed after 1968 as a measure of self-governance able to check administrative power—includes a Rules of University Conduct committee that has jurisdiction to “review and recommend revisions” to the rules and methods of enforcement if needed.
According to section 440, the University cannot restrict speech “on the ground that it is objectionable, offensive, immoral, or untrue.” While “[v]iewpoints will inevitably conflict,” the rules state that the “role of the University is not to shield individuals from positions that they find unwelcome.”
“Although the University values the civil and courteous exchange of viewpoints, it does not limit discussion because the ideas expressed might be thought offensive, immoral, disrespectful, or even dangerous,” section 440 reads.
“The University takes seriously the obligation to assure that all members of the Columbia community can pursue their academic activities without fear for their safety,” Shafik and Mitchell wrote. “The University has been clear that incitement to violence on campus will not be tolerated. We are enforcing our policies for campus events to ensure that debate and protest take place in a safe manner and that there are consequences for violations.”