[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COLUMBIA IN CRISIS: COLUMBIA
UNIVERSITY'S RESPONSE TO ANTISEMITISM
=======================================================================
HEARING
Before The
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE
WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
----------
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 17, 2024
----------
Serial No. 118-46
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: edworkforce.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov
COLUMBIA IN CRISIS: COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY'S RESPONSE TO
ANTISEMITISM
COLUMBIA IN CRISIS: COLUMBIA
UNIVERSITY'S RESPONSE TO ANTISEMITISM
=======================================================================
HEARING
Before The
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE
WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 17, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-46
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: edworkforce.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov
------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
56-964 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman
JOE WILSON, South Carolina ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia,
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania Ranking Member
TIM WALBERG, Michigan RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN,
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia Northern Mariana Islands
JIM BANKS, Indiana FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
JAMES COMER, Kentucky SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania MARK TAKANO, California
BURGESS OWENS, Utah ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
BOB GOOD, Virginia MARK DeSAULNIER, California
LISA McCLAIN, Michigan DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
MARY MILLER, Illinois PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
MICHELLE STEEL, California SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
RON ESTES, Kansas LUCY McBATH, Georgia
JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
KEVIN KILEY, California ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota
AARON BEAN, Florida HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan
ERIC BURLISON, Missouri TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
LORI CHAVEZ-DeREMER, Oregon FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana
BRANDON WILLIAMS, New York JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana
Cyrus Artz, Staff Director
Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff Director
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 17, 2024................................... 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Foxx, Hon. Virginia, Chairwoman, Committee on Education and
the Workforce.............................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', Ranking Member, Committee on
Education and the Workforce................................ 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
WITNESSES
Shafik, Dr. Nemat ``Minouche'', President, Columbia
University................................................. 14
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Schizer, David, Co-Chair, Task Force on Antisemitism,
Columbia University........................................ 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Shipman, Claire, Co-Chair, Board of Trustees, Columbia
University................................................. 31
Prepared statement of.................................... 33
Greenwald, David, Co-Chair, Board of Trustees, Columbia
University................................................. 41
Prepared statement of.................................... 43
ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS
Ranking Member Scott:
Letter dated August 28, 2017, requesting a hearing....... 6
Article dated January 19, 2005, from New York Magazine... 149
University of Chicago Report dated March 2024............ 162
Letter dated March 20, 2024, from the American Council on
Education.............................................. 607
Alumni letter dated March 28, 2024....................... 610
Columbia Task Force on Antisemitism's initial report..... 612
Letter dated April 15, 2024, from Columbia University
Irving Medical Center (CUIMC).......................... 614
Letter dated April 15, 2024, from the Office of Religious
Life, Columbia University.............................. 617
Dean's Message on Columbia and Community dated December
20, 2023............................................... 618
Joint Dean letter to Congress............................ 619
Letter dated April 11, 2024, from The University Senate
Executive Committee.................................... 621
Message dated December 20, 2023, from Columbia
University's Office of the President................... 623
Manning, Hon. Kathy, a Representative in Congress from the
State of North Carolina:
Article dated October 8, 2023, by Joseph Massad.......... 62
Statement dated April 17, 2024, by Ritchie Torres........ 69
Leger Fernandez, Hon. Teresa, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New Mexico:
Article dated November 25, 2022, from Politico........... 79
Article dated August 15, 2017, from The Atlantic......... 83
Bowman, Hon. Jamaal, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York:
Signed letter dated April 2024........................... 98
Williams, Hon. Brandon, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York:
Article on Higher Education in Nazi Germany from
perspectives.ushmm.org................................. 139
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
Responses to questions submitted for the record by:
Dr. Minouche Shafik...................................... 624
COLUMBIA IN CRISIS: COLUMBIA
UNIVERSITY'S RESPONSE TO ANTISEMITISM
----------
Wednesday, April 17, 2024
House of Representatives,
Committee on Education and The Workforce,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15, a.m., in
Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Virginia Foxx,
[Chairwoman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Foxx, Wilson, Walberg, Grothman,
Stefanik, Allen, Banks, Owens, Good, McClain, Steel, Kiley,
Bean, Burlison, Moran, Chavez-DeRemer, Williams, Scott,
Courtney, Sablan, Bonamici, Takano, Adams, DeSaulnier,
Norcross, McBath, Hayes, Omar, Stevens, Leger Fernandez,
Manning, and Bowman.
Staff present: Cyrus Artz, Staff Director; Nick Barley,
Deputy Communications Director; Mindy Barry, General Counsel;
Isabel Foster, Press Assistant; Daniel Fuenzalida, Staff
Assistant; Sheila Havenner, Director of Information Technology;
Amy Raaf Jones, Director of Education and Human Services
Policy; Alex Knorr, Legislative Assistant; Isaiah Knox,
Legislative Assistant; Georgie Littlefair, Clerk; Hannah
Matesic, Deputy Staff Director; Audra McGeorge, Communications
Director; Rebecca Powell, Staff Assistant; David Samberg,
Associate Investigative Counsel; Brad Thomas, Deputy Director
of Education and Human Services Policy; Maura Williams,
Director of Operations; Ari Wisch, Senior Counselor to the
Chairwoman; Amaris Benavidez, Minority Professional Staff;
Nekea Brown, Minority Director of Operations; Ilana Brunner,
Minority General Counsel; Rashage Green, Minority Director of
Education Policy & Counsel; Christian Haines, Minority General
Counsel; Stephanie Lalle, Minority Communications Director;
Raiyana Malone, Minority Press Secretary; Veronique Pluviose,
Minority Staff Director; Swetha Ramachandran, Minority Intern;
Maile Sit, Minority Intern; Jamar Tolbert, Minority Intern;
Banyon Vassar, Minority IT Administrator; Samantha Wilkerson,
Minority CBCF Fellow.
Chairwoman Foxx. The Committee on Education and the
Workforce will come to order. I note that a quorum is present.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to call a recess at
any time. Since October 7th, this Committee and the Nation have
watched in horror as so many of our college campuses,
particularly the most expensive so called elite campuses, have
erupted in the hotbeds of antisemitism and hate.
Dr. Shafik, Mr. Schizer, Ms. Shipman and Mr. Greenwald, you
are here testifying today because Columbia University is one of
the worst of those hotbeds, and we have seen far too little,
far too late done to counter that and protect students and
staff. Columbia stands guilty of gross negligence at best, and
at worst has become a platform for those supporting terrorism
and violence against the Jewish people.
For example, just 4 days after the harrowing October 7
attack, a former Columbia undergraduate beat an Israeli student
with a stick, while shouting racial epithets. The following day
a crowd of anti-Israel protestors marched on the University's
Kraft Center for Jewish Life, causing the building to be locked
down, and forcing Jewish students to shelter inside.
More recently on March 24, anti-Israel groups hosted a
``Resistance 101'' event in a Columbia dorm featuring speakers
linked to U.S. and Israel-designated foreign terrorist
organizations, including the PFLP. Speakers explicitly endorsed
terrorism and called on students to support it. This
unauthorized event was nevertheless promoted by Columbia
faculty and staff.
That a taxpayer funded institution would become a forum for
the promotion of terrorism raises serious questions. Moreover,
Columbia administrators have repeatedly failed in their duty to
protect Jewish students from this hateful, retrograde form of
discrimination.
Do not take my word for it. In February, Columbia
undergraduate Eden Yadegar told the Committee, ``It is
impossible to exist as a Jewish student at Columbia without
running face first into antisemitism every single day. Jew
hatred is so deeply embedded in the campus culture that it has
become casual and palatable among students and faculty and
neglected by administrators.''
Let me repeat, ``Neglected by administrators.'' Eden and
some of her fellow Jewish classmates are in attendance today. I
believe they deserve direct and clear answers about how you
will address their concerns. I need not remind you that this
not just a moral duty, but a legal duty set forth in Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Finally, as the Committee convenes today to conduct its
solemn oversight duty of postsecondary education, I can
confidently say that never has this duty been more important.
The raw, visceral reaction of the Nation to the unveiling of
antisemitism at so-called elite institutions is indicative of
the growing disconnect between the people and those
universities.
This is evidenced by a general loss of public trust and
faith in postsecondary education. We are headed down a dark
path if we cannot agree on basic shared moral values, such as
the implication of calls for genocide. Bright lines must be
drawn before the reputational damage to American universities
is endemic and intractable.
With today's hearing I hope to draw those bright lines.
This is an opportunity for each of you to address the public
directly and explain your stance on one of the great moral
issues of our time. Antisemitism must have no safe harbor in
American universities. With that, I yield to the Ranking Member
for an opening statement.
[The statement of Chairwoman Foxx follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Dr. Foxx, and I thank our witnesses
today for appearing with us. I would like to start my opening
statement with a video from the 2017 rally to remind everyone
of what happened at the University of Virginia campus during a
Unite the Right Rally.
As a warning, this video may contain some graphic content.
[Video played.]
Thank you. As shown in the video white supremacists marched
through the grounds of the University of Virginia in 2017
chanting slogans such as ``Jews will not replace us.'' At the
time, I wrote a letter to my republican colleagues asking for a
hearing to discuss rising tensions and discrimination on
college campuses. I have that letter with me today, and I would
like to ask for unanimous consent to enter that letter into the
record.
Chairwoman Foxx. Without objection.
[The Information of Ranking Member Scott follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Scott. Regrettably the country was denied the
opportunity to address this issue 7 years ago. What we saw in
the video is not an isolated event. It is the byproduct of this
country's century long history of white supremacy and
antisemitism. We should not faint surprise that there is hate
speech on America's college campuses.
The fact is, college campuses are polarized, as is our
society, and we witness the disturbing rise in incidents, not
only in antisemitism, but also in racism, Islamophobia,
homophobia and other forms of hate. Nonetheless, schools have a
responsibility to foster campus environments that promote
understanding, respectful dialog, and above else student safety
for all students.
Jewish students, in fact all students, have a right to
attend college free from hostility, and in compliance with
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There is no excuse
for antisemitism on campus, and everyone is entitled to a safe
harbor that my colleague, the Chair referred to.
As Dr. Shafik notes in her testimony, ``While there may be
some easy cases, drawing a line between permissible and
impermissible campus speech is enormously difficult. The U.S.
Supreme Court has struggled for more than two centuries to
define the limits of free speech under the First Amendment, and
that struggle continues.
Do not expect universities to figure it out overnight.''
Now, this moment requires thoughtful and nuanced discussion,
something this Committee has not always done. Moreover, we
should expand the scope of our conversation to include the
students who are actually being denied access to an education
as a result of discrimination.
We should not put on political theater or see the strategy
as the aftermath as an opportunity just to grandstand. Rather,
we need to recenter this conversation around our obligation to
provide all students with a safe learning environment. In
particular, as Members of Congress, we must examine the issues
of antisemitism and all other forms of animus on campus.
This includes respecting the need for a safe environment to
learn, and the importance of the First Amendment. Finally,
while I appreciate my colleague's newfound concerns, for some
students Civil Rights on campus, I would note that it is at
odds with House republican's budget proposals.
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot call for action,
and then reduce funding for the very agency charged with
protecting students' Civil Rights. In conclusion, I hope this
discussion today is more thoughtful and deliberate, and
respectful of the complex Constitutional question before us,
even though the same opportunity was not afforded to democrats
when we requested it after the racist UVA rally 7 years ago.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
[The statement of Ranking Member Scott follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Scott. I appreciate the
Ranking Member's deeply held concern about racial and other
forms of discrimination. I share his abhorrence of such
discrimination and white supremacist beliefs in particular. As
I said in 2017, ``The violence and bigotry displayed in
Charlottesville remain an afront to our shared American values.
I strongly condemn these acts of hate.''
It is unfortunate that referencing the tragedy in
Charlottesville has become a repeated talking point at
Committee events, intended to address the wave of antisemitism
occurring nationwide today. The episode to which Congressman
Scott refers was not organized, or attended by university
students, but was instead held by a group of white supremacists
who trespassed at the university.
There was no cause or jurisdiction for the Committee to
open a broad investigation, or one into the University of
Virginia for an event its students did not attend that the
University did not approve, and that was appropriately
responded to by the University. There was also no pattern of
such events on campuses across the Nation to address.
In contrast, at Columbia and numerous other schools, there
has been a pattern of unapproved antisemitic events organized
and attended by university students and staff that have denied
Jewish students their right to a safe learning environment, and
a failure by university administrators to respond appropriately
to that denial.
We will appropriately return our focus to that current
crisis.
[Video playing.]
Chairwoman Foxx. Pursuant to Committee Rule 8C, all members
who wish to insert written statements into the record may do so
by submitting them to the Committee Clerk electronically in
Microsoft Word format by 5 p.m., 14 days after the date of this
hearing, which is May 1, 2024. Without objection, the hearing
record will remain open for 14 days to allow such statements
and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to
be submitted for the official hearing record.
I now turn to the introduction of our witnesses. Our first
witness is Dr. Minouche Shafik, who is President of Columbia
University in New York, New York. Our second witness is
Professor David Schizer, who is Co-Chair of the Task Force on
Antisemitism at Columbia University in New York, New York, and
served as Dean of the Law School from 2004 to 2014.
Our next witness is Ms. Claire Shipman, who is Co-Chair of
the Board of Trustees at Columbia University. Our final witness
is Mr. David Greenwald, who is also Co-Chair of the Board of
Trustees at Columbia University in New York. We thank you all
for being here today, and look forward to your testimony.
I want to remind the witnesses we have read your written
statements, which will appear in full in the hearing record.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 8-D and Committee practice, I ask
that you each limit your oral presentation to a 5-minute
summary of your written statement.
I also remind the witnesses to be aware of their
responsibility to provide accurate information to the
Committee. I will first recognize Dr. Shafik for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. NEMAT ``MINOUCHE'' SHAFIK, PRESIDENT,
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, NEW YORK, NEW YORK
Dr. Shafik. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking
Member Scott and members of the Committee. My name is Minouche
Shafik, and I am the 20th President of Columbia University. Let
me start by saying that Columbia strives to be a community free
of discrimination and hate in all its forms.
We condemn the antisemitism that is so pervasive today.
Antisemitism has no place on our campus, and I am personally
committed to doing everything I can to confront it directly. My
approach to these issues is informed in part by my own
experiences.
I was born in Alexandria, Egypt, but after losing
everything during the Revolution, my family came to the United
States when I was just 4 years old. We lived in Georgia,
Florida and North Carolina. I was the product of the
desegregation era, and was bussed to many public schools and
witnessed firsthand many aspects of discrimination.
After attending the University of Massachusetts and the
London School of Economics where I later became President, I
received a scholarship to attend Oxford University where I did
a Doctorate in economics. For most of my career I have worked
in international organizations, where people from all
nationalities, religions and backgrounds worked side by side to
solve the world's problems.
I wanted to bring that 25-year track record of leading and
improving large, complex and diverse organizations to a great
university like Columbia. On October 7th the world changed, and
so did my focus. Israel was brutally attacked by Hamas
terrorists, and very soon it became clear that these horrific
events would ignite fear and anguish across our campus.
For thousands of our Jewish and Israeli students, the
catastrophe was deeply personal. Many knew people that had been
killed or taken hostage in the attack. For many other Columbia
students, the war in Gaza also had profound personal
implications. Also, was part of a larger story of Palestinian
displacement, as well as a humanitarian catastrophe.
Trying to reconcile the free speech rights of those who
wanted to protest, and the rights of Jewish students to be in
an environment free of discrimination and harassment has been
the central challenge on our campus, and numerous others across
the country.
Regrettably, the events of October 7th brought to the floor
an uncurrent of antisemitism that is a major challenge, and
like many other universities, Columbia has seen a rise in
antisemitic incidents. We took immediate action after October
7th. We contacted those directly affected to provide them
support, both in the region and in New York.
I attended a vigil for the victims on October 9th. We held
daily meetings of our Campus Security Committee, we brought in
extra security expertise, and had regular contact with NYPD and
the FBI. I have spent most of my time since becoming President
on these issues, holding over 200 meetings with groups of
students, faculty, alumni, donors, parents, some of whom are
here, and 20 meetings with other university Presidents to learn
with each other.
That work has been done alongside my excellent colleagues
at Columbia, and with the active engagement of our Trustees,
including my CoChairs who are with me today. Our actions
included support for students, enhanced reporting channels for
incidents, hiring additional staff to investigate complaints,
developing new policies on demonstrations, holding listening
forums to model respectful behaviors, launching educational
programs, and forming a task force of our senior academic
leaders to propose solutions to antisemitism.
From the start, I have held on to four principles. First,
safety is paramount, and we would do whatever is necessary to
ensure the safety of our campus. Because of those efforts, the
vast majority of our demonstrations have been peaceful.
Second, we would demonstrate care and compassion equally to
everyone. Third, we must uphold freedom of speech because it is
essential to our academic mission, but we cannot and should not
tolerate abuse of this privilege to harass and discriminate.
Fourth, the ultimate answer to antisemitism in all its
forms is education, and we should not lose sight of the
powerful impact of our core mission. Will it work? There have
been periods in history when antisemitism is in abeyance, and
they were characterized by enlightened leadership, inclusive
cultures and clarity about rights and obligations.
Those are the values I cherish, and that I am determined to
bring to Columbia. I know together we will emerge as a stronger
community as a result. Thank you for your time, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The Statement of Dr. Shafik follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. I now recognize Professor
Schizer for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR DAVID SCHIZER, DEAN EMER-
ITUS AND HARVEY R. MILLER PROFESSOR OF LAW & ECO-
NOMICS, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, NEW YORK, NEW YORK
Mr. Schizer. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx, and thank you
Ranking Member Scott for inviting me to testify today. In the
wake of Hamas's barbaric atrocities on October 7th, there has
been a chilling surge in antisemitism across the globe, and
unfortunately at Columbia as well.
President Shafik asked me to serve as a Co-Chair of a new
task force on antisemitism. I am here today to share the task
force's initial findings and recommendations. There is a lot to
do, and we are not yet where we need to be, but we are making
real progress. Before I get into the details, I will explain
why the task force's work is so important to me personally.
One reason is obvious, Columbia is my home. I have been on
the faculty for 26 years, including 10 years as Dean of the Law
School. I have also devoted years of my life to combatting
antisemitism, including as CEO of a Jewish humanitarian
organization called the American Jewish Joint Distribution
Committee.
I also have another personal reason to ensure that Columbia
provides a welcoming environment for Jews and everyone else,
which is grounded in my family history. My grandfather grew up
in Ukraine. His grandfather was lynched in a pogrom.
A few years later he almost met the same fate. A group of
antisemitic thugs put my grandfather up against a wall, and
were about to shoot him, but he managed to get away.
Thankfully, he was able to come to America. He taught himself
English in the public library, and eventually he enrolled at
Columbia Teacher's College and that changed his life.
He became a Judaic studies teacher in a Hebrew school. His
son became a lawyer, and his son became a layer, and that's
who's here before you today. Columbia is not just my
professional home; Columbia is my cause. I am inspired by what
the University has done for my family, and for so many families
from diverse backgrounds across the globe.
It is critical to preserve that proud tradition. The work
of our antisemitism task force has not been easy. In the past 6
months we have heard too many heartbreaking stories. For
example, one of my students who wears a kippah, was approached
in the law school's lobby by a student who said, ``F the
Jews.''
Another was spat upon at a protest. A student wearing a
shirt with an Israeli flag was pinned against a wall by a
protestor and told to, ``Keep on F'ing running'' when he broke
free. When I heard this my first thought was of my grandfather
being pushed up against a wall in Ukraine. This is simply
unacceptable.
It is also heartbreaking that many Jewish and Israeli
students feel uncomfortable in student groups having nothing to
do with the Middle East. Being a Zionist should not disqualify
anyone from a dance group, or a theater production. This sort
of pressure, signaling that Jews are accepted only if they
reject a core part of their religion and identity, well it
sounds like old-fashioned bigotry to me, and again, this is
simply unacceptable.
Although there are problems at Columbia, many capable and
dedicated people are working hard to address them. Our task
force has been in close touch with President Shafik, her
leadership team, the Board, as well as faculty, staff,
students, graduates and parents from across the university.
Our task force began with a report last month on the rules
governing protest. We offered four main recommendations, and
the university is implementing all of them. First, protests
should be allowed only in designated locations, not in academic
buildings. Protected speech is essential, but it can't get in
the way of other people's rights to speak.
Second, the University needs to be more effective at
enforcing its rules, so we suggested improvements. Third, a few
years ago the University launched a major initiative to combat
gender-based misconduct. We need a comparable effort for
antisemitism.
Fourth, the University needs to avoid double standards.
When Jewish students complain that speech makes them
uncomfortable, they should get the same treatment as other
groups. We plan to issue another report in May, drawing on over
20 listening sessions with students, to describe student
encounters with antisemitism, discuss definitions of
antisemitism, and recommend changes in orientation, student
services and student groups.
We will issue more reports next year as well. In all of
this work we are mindful of the University's solemn
responsibility to teach the next generation, so they think
critically, seek knowledge, cherish and defend liberty, and
build a better world. We may disagree, even passionately, but
we are at our best when we State our positions with civility.
This shows not only skill as an advocate, but also human
decency, respect for shared values, and respect for each other.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The Statement of Mr. Schizer follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Foxx. Ms. Shipman, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF MS. CLAIRE SHIPMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEE
CO-CHAIR, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, NEW YORK, NEW YORK
Ms. Shipman. Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member Scott, members
of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here
today, and to discuss Columbia's efforts to combat
antisemitism. Antisemitism is dangerous and reprehensible. It
has no place at Columbia or in our society, and I am grateful
as a citizen, and as Co-Chair of our Board for the spotlight
you are putting on this ancient hatred, and the critical role
you all play in holding our most important institutions
accountable.
As a reporter, I always have a bias toward transparency and
accountability. It is difficult and heartbreaking to hear, as
we do regularly, that members of our community like these brave
students who are here today, feel unsafe. I am the parent of
college aged children. I know dozens of students at Columbia,
and I feel this current climate on our campus viscerally.
It is unacceptable. I can tell you plainly that I am not
satisfied with where Columbia is at the moment. As Co-Chair of
the Board I bear responsibility for that. This role is one of
the great privileges of my life, and I take the weight of its
responsibility seriously.
I am dedicated to addressing these concerns. The days
immediately following October 7th are the most painful I have
experienced on our campus. I knew as word of the horrific Hamas
terror attack started to spread, that this terrorist tragedy
would have a devastating impact, especially on our Jewish
students.
Two days later, President Shafik and I joined hundreds of
members of our community for a somber, candlelight vigil on the
steps of Low Library. The grief was intense. It was a moment of
comfort, but that moment would be fleeting. The last 6 months
on our campus have served as an extreme pressure test.
Our systems clearly have not been equipped to manage the
unfolding situation, but with each challenge we have moved to
adapt physical safety as President Shafik said was and is
paramount. We were seeing protests of an unprecedented type and
scale, levels of threats and harassment especially directed at
our Jewish students that was unacceptable.
We shut our gates. We backed the critical decision to bring
the New York City Police Department on to our campus during
demonstrations for the first time in 50 years. We have also
brought on other law enforcement experts, rewritten our rules,
beefed up our enforcement process. We have suspended two
student groups for noncompliance, more than a dozen individual
students, and we disciplined faculty members.
We have also created a heavily respected, independent,
antisemitism task force, as you've heard, and launched training
across the university on antisemitism. I hope to be able to
talk about more of our efforts later but let me say something
equally important. We are far from done. I am outraged by the
vile sentiments I continue to hear by those who ignore our
rules, and we are holding them accountable.
This problem though goes deeper than discipline. It is
about returning to our core values, as an institution. Late
last fall I moderated a powerful event with two brilliant
women. Our Israeli Dean of our Foreign Policy School, and her
friend, the Palestinian Dean of Princeton's Foreign Policy
School.
They did not agree on everything, but the women spoke with
empathy, wisdom, common sense, and respect. That should be our
steady State. Forty years ago, I arrived in New York from
Columbus, Ohio, a financial aid student with little sense about
the school, about the city, or even the world.
I was challenged by the breadth of ideas and outlooks. I
drank up the chance to rub shoulders with cutting edge DNA
researchers, frontline cold war strategists who changed my
political point of view. Columbia changed my life. That is what
universities are meant to do, to teach students how to think,
not what to think.
To challenge and broaden and definitely not to intimidate
and terrorize. We can be a campus that battles both
antisemitism and all bigotry, and also be a place that allows
for vigorous debate. A place that can weigh the most difficult
questions in the world in a civilized, respectful fashion. We
are determined to create again a flourishing eco-system.
A healthy Columbia as we rebuild, must start with common
sense and common decency with respect for each other, and our
rules. We all here are committed to being honest about where we
are, and doing the hard work, and I can tell you we will not
stop until we get it right.
I look forward today to getting your input. Thank you.
[The Statement of Ms. Shipman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Greenwald
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID GREENWALD, BOARD OF TRUST-
EES CO-CHAIR, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, NEW YORK, NEW
YORK
Mr. Greenwald. Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member Scott and
members of the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to
discuss how Columbia University is fighting this surge on
antisemitism on our campuses since the revolting and horrific
Hamas terrorist attack on October 7th.
We recognize this hearing is part of a broader effort by
the Committee to combat antisemitism and bigotry on college
campuses. We stand ready to assist the Committee. In recent
years antisemitism has been on the rise across the world,
throughout the United States and on university campuses.
This disturbing trend was starkly brought to the forefront
on October 7th. We agree with the Committee, it is essential
that we take on this fight. Let me make clear from the outset,
any targeting of Jews for hate, harassment, violence,
intimidation, discrimination or exclusion is antisemitic and
unacceptable at Columbia. The University's leadership,
including the Board of Trustees and President Shafik, are
committed to stopping these incidents, and standing with the
Jewish community.
We know this work is not complete. I have been Co-Chair of
the Board of Trustees, together with Claire.
Chairwoman Foxx. Mr. Greenwald, we have been asked to have
you pull your mic closer to you please. Thank you.
Mr. Greenwald. Okay. Is that better? Okay thank you. For 40
years since graduating from Columbia Law School, I practice in
New York and London, until retiring as Chairman of the Fried
Frank firm in February of this year. My wife, Beth, is in the
audience today, demonstrating the love and support she has
shown me for 40 years.
I am a Jewish American. I have been subjected to
antisemitism. Beth and I are active in the Jewish community. In
2017, I proudly accepted the American Jewish Community's
Learned Hand Award. The AJC works to combat antisemitism and
bigotry in all forms. I mention my background only to make
clear that I come to these issues with personal experience.
There was corrosive and unacceptable fear at Columbia
following the barbaric terrorist attacks by Hamas on Israeli
citizens, women, children, and babies. A professor glorified
the attacks. A group of faculty penned a letter saying that the
terrorist attacks were legitimate military actions.
There were protests on campus in which protestors shouted,
``From the river to the sea,'' and held banners saying things
like ``whatever it takes''. Many Jews herein see that as a call
to eliminate Israel and Jews everywhere. As a result, many
Jewish students and other members of our Columbia community did
not feel safe.
By their very nature, universities are places for lively
debate and disagreement, but those debates must be respectful,
peaceful, and collegial. When those debates devolve into
antisemitic harassment, discrimination, or violence, as has
unacceptably happened at Columbia after October 7th, there must
be consequences.
Since October 7th the Board of Trustees and the University,
including the four members of this panel, have taken many steps
to combat antisemitism on our campuses, and to ensure the
safety of the Columbian community. I set out in detail some of
these steps in my written testimony.
I will mention only a few here. At the Trustee level, we
quickly formed our own task force with a view toward overseeing
the actions of our leadership, and developing ideas for
addressing antisemitism. Two student groups have been
suspended. We engaged the FBI in response to a vile and
shocking, unauthorized event that took place in a university
residence last month.
Ten students were suspended from the University in
connection with that despicable event. Consistent with
principles of free speech, protests on campus have been
restricted to locations consistent with our commitment to a
safe and inclusive community. Action has been taken against
multiple faculty members, and numerous addition faculty members
are under investigation.
Columbia has implemented at least 90 disciplinary measures
against students, if necessary, additional actions of this
nature will be taken to combat antisemitism and to promote the
safety of the members of our community. Thank you again for the
opportunity to discuss a topic of critical importance to me, to
Columbia, and more broadly to our Nation.
Eliminating antisemitism takes unrelenting and aggressive
effort. Columbia is committed to making those efforts to
address this ancient scourge. I welcome your questions and
advice.
[The Statement of Mr. Greenwald follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much. Under Committee Rule
9, we will now question witnesses under the Five-Minute Rule. I
remind members that I will enforce the Five-Minute Rule
strictly. You are advised to keep your questions succinct, so
the witnesses have time to answer. I will begin the
questioning.
Dr. Shafik, you described the April 4, ``All Out for Al-
Shifa'' event that took place at Columbia's campus as an,
``Unapproved event near academic buildings in violation of our
rules and policies.'' You promised that participants would
``face discipline''.
Your university policy requires disciplinary action to be
initiated shortly after an incident occurs. According to
records provided by Columbia to the Committee, the school
identified at least 32 participants at the event, and sent out
``interim warning letters,'' to them to ``remind you of
Columbia's policies.'' Is that what you meant by facing
discipline?
Dr. Shafik. Chairwoman, I want to confirm that yes, we did.
We did send warning letters. We developed in consultation with
our antisemitism task force a new demonstration policy, which
clarified what would happen to students who attended
unsanctioned events, and that policy that we also worked with
our faculty and students on, has a hierarchy of punishments.
Anyone who attends an unsanctioned event is immediately
sent a warning letter, and if it's as an immediate action. If
other sorts of misconduct occur at such an event, there could
be further sanctions.
Chairwoman Foxx. Let me followup on that then. If sending
warning letters is discipline, has Columbia sent up warning
letters following the dozens of other unapproved events that
have occurred since October 7th.,
Dr. Shafik. Since we have had this policy in place since we
have had this new policy in place, yes, I would confirm that we
have sent, and those letters were sent out immediately. Those
letters, if there had been repeat offenses, stay permanently on
the record of those students for the rest of their time at
Columbia.
Of course, if other misconduct occurs, it can lead to
suspension and in extreme cases, expulsion.
Chairwoman Foxx. Well, how can we be confident that you
will restore order and a safe learning environment if it took
you months to send warning letters?
Dr. Shafik. Chairwoman, I want to reassure you I have
absolutely no hesitation in enforcing our policies. When I
first started at Columbia our policies, our systems, and our
enforcement mechanisms were not up to the scale of this
challenge.
Chairwoman Foxx. Okay.
Dr. Shafik. They were designed for a very different world.
They were designed for a student cheating on an exam.
Chairwoman Foxx. Well, let us go to April 4th, when you did
have policies in effect. The day before the April 4th rally, a
Columbia University apartheid divest substack post warned
participants to wear masks, cover any identifying features, and
not swipe their Columbia IDs to evade accountability for
disciplinary violations. What discipline has Columbia imposed
to address the group's leaders, instructing students how to
break the rules because you can tell by their being on the
substack who they are?
Dr. Shafik. I think one of the most effective things that
we have done since the start, since October 7th is that when we
know that events will happen, we have moved toward requiring
Columbia University IDs to access our campus. That has
prevented outside forces to come and cause trouble, and I think
that is a very important reason why most of our demonstrations,
in fact, the vast majority have been safe.
Chairwoman Foxx. One of those organizers and speaker at
this unapproved Pro Hamas rally was a student already suspended
for hosting an affiliate of a terrorist organization. Do you
agree that this continued defiance further aggravates the
severity of the violations by the suspended student, as well as
the group organizing the event?
The students do not seem to be afraid of your letters.
Dr. Shafik. Chairwoman, I assure you the students are not
getting letters, as has previously been said we have already
suspended 15 students from Columbia. We have six on
disciplinary probation. These are more disciplinary actions
that have been taken, than probably in the last decade in
Columbia. I promise you that from the messages that I am
hearing from students they are getting the message that
violations will impose these kinds of consequences.
Chairwoman Foxx. Well, thank you. Mr. Greenwald, the
Trustees at Columbia are ultimately responsible for Columbia's
governance. All of us have seen the true nature of Columbia
exposed. Can you honestly say that you and the Board fulfilled
the trust placed in you to maintain the good character of
Columbia when you see the repeated screams of hate on your
campus?
Mr. Greenwald. The antisemitism on our campus makes me sick
to my stomach. We are taking steps to address it.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. I now recognize Ms. Bonamici
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much to the witnesses for being
here today. I condemn in the strongest possible terms
antisemitism on college campuses, or anywhere. It is my sincere
hope that this Committee will work together on real and
tangible solutions to address it.
We should be hearing from experts who can help the
Committee determine what the response should be to an increase
in antisemitism, as well as Islamophobia, racial hostility, and
other forms of discrimination and hate speech. Whether there
are sufficient resources and tools under Title 6 of the Civil
Rights Act to keep up with this increase.
It is also my hope that members of this Committee not
continue to exploit this real and very concerning challenge to
further political goals or narratives. To begin, I would like
to clarify something with a simple yes or no question for all
of the witnesses. Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate
Columbia's Code of Conduct?
Mr. Greenwald.
Mr. Greenwald. Yes it does.
Ms. Bonamici. Ms. Shipman.
Ms. Shipman. Yes it does.
Ms. Bonamici. Dr. Shafik.
Dr. Shafik. Yes it does.
Ms. Bonamici. Professor Schizer.
Mr. Schizer. Yes it does.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. Then my next question is for Dr.
Shafik, and then I will have a question for Professor Schizer.
Dr. Shafik, as President of Columbia, what is it like when you
hear chants like, ``By Any Means Necessary,'' or ``Intifada
Revolution?'' Do these chants violate Columbia's rules?
Dr. Shafik. I find those chants, incredibly distressing,
and I wish profoundly that people would not use them on our
campus. I wish that even more after the many, many
conversations that I have had with our Jewish students when
they tell me how they feel when they hear those words. They
find it threatening, they find it frightening, and it is
abhorrent and has no place in our community.
I think one of the issues that we are actively debating
now, and which David Schizer, I hope is part of the
antisemitism task force will help us find solutions as you have
asked for, Congresswoman, is to actually clarify where language
crosses the line from protected speech to discriminatory or
harassing speech.
We have already sent a message to our community when all 17
Deans of Columbia University in a historic message, which has
never been done before said that we need to be sensitive about
language, and some of those expressions that you have said
``River to the Sea Intifada,'' are incredibly hurtful, and we
need to be as a community be aware that that language is
hurtful.
We have already sent a strong signal. I think one of the
excellent recommendations of our antisemitism task force is
that they have said that if you are going to chant, it should
only be in a certain place, so people who do not want to hear
it are protected from having to hear it.
Ms. Bonamici. I do want time to followup with Professor
Schizer. Thank you. Professor Schizer, my husband's grandfather
also survived pogrom, and so that means a lot to my family as
well. You heard Dr. Shafik's answer. We know that you are one
of the Coleaders of Dr. Shafik's antisemitism task force, as
well as the former Law School Dean.
Will you please explain the First Amendment considerations
behind Columbia's policies?
Mr. Schizer. The chants we are hearing, some of them are
absolutely repugnant and offensive, and let us be honest about
that. As we approach what to do we have to remember three
principles, and the first is free speech matters, protected
speech. We do not want to suppress points of view.
The second point is we do not just have free speech, we
have free speech responsibilities. The fact that I can speak
does not mean, Congresswoman, that I can shout you down, and
prevent the students from hearing you. Third, free speech does
not extend to harassment and discrimination.
What we need to do is we need to make sure that our
students are protected from harassment and discrimination, even
as we protect speech.
Ms. Bonamici. On your work on the task force, are you
convinced that that will address that need?
Mr. Schizer. These are very difficult issues, but I am
convinced that we are working closely with the University, and
we will get the job done.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, and I will yield back the balance
of my time.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much. Mr. Wilson, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I would like to
thank each of you for being here. The name Columbia is very
important to me. I represent Columbia, South Carolina, with the
Mayor Daniel Rickenmann, and my wife Roxanne is a graduate of
Columbia College in Columbia, South Carolina.
Please keep the name positive. Aside from that I am also
very grateful that I grew up in the holy city of Charleston,
South Carolina, and so I grew up with an appreciation of people
of Jewish heritage. At the time, the American Revolution the
largest Jewish population in the New World was in Charleston,
South Carolina.
The first Provincial Constitution to recognize Judaism as a
religion was South Carolina. The first Jewish American elected
official in the New World was in the Provincial Assembly.
Sadly, the first Jewish American killed in the Revolution was
in Charleston, South Carolina. That is the environment I grew
up in, and that is why I just cannot believe the environment we
are in today.
It has just got to be addressed. The barbaric mass murder
of October 7th by Iranian puppets of Hamas invading Israel has
shockingly revealed that many college campuses are sickeningly
antisemitic, and time and time again by defending the maniacal
Hamas agenda.
The agenda needs to be known. They have published it, and
it is the Hamas covenant of August 18, 1988, and Article 7
makes clear to chase every Jew behind a rock and a tree until
you find the last Jew and kill him behind the rock. This is not
an accident. Additionally, we need to identify too Hamas is a
puppet of Iran, as is Hezbollah, who on January 28th killed
three young American Army Reservists.
This should not be forgotten, the type of people we are
dealing with. College campuses have descended from the coveted
citadels of intellectual freedom to illiberal arenas of
intolerance and bigotry, full of close-minded intolerants
protected by left wing academia.
All Americans in good faith want college education to be
meaningful for students to achieve the American dream, free
from harassment, intimidation and destructive and mindless
indoctrination. I particularly support diversity of
intellectual, ideology. It should be when we talk about
diversity, good gosh, it should be ideological too, not
mandated on soviet style education.
I wrote a column for the Washington Times op-ed December
7th of last year, explaining my concern about antisemitism.
President Shafik, there are dozens of antisemitic incidents
documented in the Committee's February 12th document request
letter, legal complaints by students and student videos.
Sadly, the documents Columbia produced to the committee
shows the University only suspended three students for
antisemitic incidents between October 7th and March 24th, with
the resistance 101 event. All three of those were lifted or
reduced to adjudication. What standard does Columbia use to
decide the antisemitic conduct rises to the level of what you
have identified as suppression?
Dr. Shafik. Thank you very much, and I wanted to say I
share your deep concern about antisemitism, and your concern
about diversity of thought, which is something that is very
important to me in my role as President of Columbia. I think
the fundamental issue, and I think this is something the Anti-
Defamation League has said in its own work, the ultimate
solution to fighting this horrible form of bigotry is
education, and that is a huge focus for us at Columbia.
We are changing the way we do education for our incoming
students to make sure that they are educated about
antisemitism, and we are also looking at expanding our academic
offer. We already have about 50 courses at Columbia on Israel,
on Jewish studies on the Middle East, and we need to expand
that in order to ultimately deal with this horrible problem.
Mr. Wilson. Well, we would support every effort. Then hey,
I want to express concern too, and that is the Columbia School
of Social Work has a glossary, which identifies capitalism as a
system of economic oppression. I hope that your academics visit
Pyongyang. I am one with former Congressman Eliot Engel. I have
been to Pyongyang. I have seen the benefits of socialism and
communism.
They have reduced what was the wealthiest part of Korea
into the poorest with a per capital income of $867.00. South
Korea, capitalist South Korea $44,000.00. The thought of saying
that capitalism is suppressive is so insulting, and stupid, and
historically incorrect, and communism, socialism, fascism do
not work, capitalism does, that is why America is the most
successful country on earth. I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Mr. Takano, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Madam Chair. I strongly condemn
antisemitic behavior, antisemitic speech, antisemitic actions
on any college campus, and likewise I condemn anti-Palestinian,
or anti-Islamic or Islamophobic behavior as well. Professor
Schizer, I am struck by some work survey reach done by Richard
Pape with the University of Chicago's project on security
threats, security and threats of higher education on the extent
of campus fears and changes in antisemitism after October 7th.
While his findings reveal that 56 percent of Jewish
students felt in personal danger, 52 percent of Muslim college
students feel also in personal danger. Most surprisingly, 16
percent of other college students felt a personal danger as a
result of the campus current climate on campuses.
He further concludes that, ``Different perceptions of
intent are likely contributing to those fears.'' 66 percent of
Jewish students understand a pro-Palestinian protests chant,
``From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free,'' to mean
the expulsion and genocide of Israeli Jews, while only 14
percent of Muslims understand the chant that way.
Dr. Pape believes the underlying fears that are not being
addressed are fueling both antisemitic and anti-Islamic
sentiment on campus. ``About 10 percent of college students
would permit student groups to call for genocide against Jews,
and about 13 percent of college students say that when Jews are
attacked it is because they deserve it.''
When these same questions are asked about Muslims, we find
the same percentages, 10 percent and 13 percent respectively,
in particular, the findings are an opportunity to recenter the
national discussion around students, and away from politics.
The finding shows strong support for calming actions, such as
major public statements by university and national leaders that
would condemn violence of any kind against any group of people.
What is your reaction to Professor Pape's research and what
you have been doing with your group?
Mr. Schizer. I think your question and his research
highlight the importance of this hearing, and I am grateful to
all of you for holding it. It is unacceptable for any students
at any university to feel fear, or to feel uncomfortable
because of who they are.
We cannot have that in the United States of America. If you
ask me are we doing enough? I say we have not yet done enough,
and we are on our way, but we have a way to go. I will just
emphasize two other things. First of all, we need consistency,
right? What we do for Jewish students, what we do for Muslim
students, we need to do for all students.
Consistency is, at its core, what our country is about, and
I think sometimes we are falling short there. We need to focus
on that, and we need to protect everyone, while also allowing
robust debate because that is the essence of the university.
Mr. Takano. Professor Schizer, in your task force work to
combat antisemitism, I believe you are also focused on with
your statement about consistency, making sure that all students
are safe, your Muslim students, your Palestinian students are
safe. Is that true? Is that accurate?
Mr. Schizer. Absolutely. I should say our specific mandate
is antisemitism, but we hope that our recommendations and the
ideas we develop with colleagues will be applicable to everyone
and will be helpful to everyone.
Mr. Takano. Well, I am struck by your comments, your
written comments. When you say members of a group that say
particular phrases, or comments that interfere with their
ability to learn and work should the university defer to them?
In recent years this sort of deference has been commonplace for
instance when women, black and transgender students have
registered concerns and discussions of sexual assault, beliefs,
and transgender rights.
The response has been different when Jewish students and
Israeli students lodge similar complaints after October 7th.
With the time remaining, can you kind of help unpack that a bit
more for the Committee?
Mr. Schizer. Sure. I am a conservative. I am close to many
conservative students. There have been times when they have
gotten a signal that they should really go slow on a particular
event, or not articulate a particular position because it makes
others feel uncomfortable, and it is striking how that kind of
language has not been applied to Jewish students, when Jewish
students have said we feel uncomfortable, the emphasis has been
no, no, no, free speech.
No. I want to be clear. I think free speech is essential,
but I also think consistency is essential. We need to have the
same approach for everyone.
Mr. Takano. Thank you. My time is up. I wish I could talk
to you more, but I yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Takano. Mr. Walberg, you
are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to the
panel for being here. The day after the October 7th attack,
Professor Joseph Masad, and I only single him out amongst
numerous others that I could single out, because he
particularly is a tenured professor, and Chairs the School of
Arts and Sciences Academic Review Committee.
He wrote in an article praising, and I quote him, ``The
innovative Palestinian resistance,'' for attacking Israel and
glorifying Hamas's slaughter of nearly 1,200 Jews as and I
quote again, ``Awesome, astonishing, astounding and
incredible.'' What perverse statements, yes. A tenured
professor, who has been saying these type of things for 20
years at Columbia.
President Shafik, you recently said, and I quote, ``It is
absolutely unacceptable for any member of the Columbia
community to promote the use of terror and violence.'' Do you
condemn Professor Masad's statement, and has he faced any
consequences for it?
Dr. Shafik. Congressman, I do condemn his statement. I am
appalled by what he said.
Mr. Walberg. Any consequences?
Dr. Shafik. He has been spoken to.
Mr. Walberg. Spoken to?
Dr. Shafik. I think you could----
Mr. Walberg. The support of terrorism is acceptable if you
are a Columbia professor?
Dr. Shafik. Not at all. I should say----
Mr. Walberg. He has been spoken to?
Dr. Shafik. I did not get to----
Mr. Walberg. I have your answer.
Dr. Shafik. No.
Mr. Walberg. Let me move on here. Professor Masad has also
been known to have called Israelis, ``cruel and blood thirsty
colonizers.'' Foreigners who join the Israel military as,
``baby killing Zionists, Jewish volunteers for Israeli Jewish
supremacy.'' In 2005, an investigation by Columbia corroborated
allegations that Masad yelled at a Jewish student who
questioned his views to, ``get out of my classroom.''
Can you imagine free speech? Diversity on campus? Well, let
us move it over. Let us intentionally disregard the feelings of
the Jewish student as being less than human in this classroom,
to someone like myself, who might be given this to wear to
remember and bring home the hostages now to quietly take it
off, so my professor would not see it.
A professor who holds my academic career in the palm of his
hands. Is that free speech? That is diversity? President
Shafik, I am concerned that that is not happening here, so let
me ask this question. As the Chair of the School of Arts and
Sciences Academic Review Committee, Professor Masad is
responsible for, ``overseeing the periodic review of all
departments, centers and institutes in the school.''
Do you stand behind Professor Massad remaining Chair of
this Academic Review Committee, given his support for terrorism
and harassing Jewish students.
Dr. Shafik. Congressman Walberg, I just want to confirm
that when faculty behave in any discriminatory fashion at
Columbia.
Mr. Walberg. You talk to them?
Dr. Shafik. There are consequences. No. We take them out of
the classroom if necessary.
Mr. Walberg. Is he out of the classroom?
Dr. Shafik. We use the term leadership post if necessary.
We allow students to leave those classes if they feel at all
uncomfortable.
Mr. Walberg. Is he out of the classroom?
Dr. Shafik. He is I believe to answer your question, he is
no longer a Chair of that Committee, and does not have a
leadership role.
Mr. Walberg. Not out of the classroom. Let me move over to
the Trustees. As Trustees, would you approve Professor Masad
for tenure if the decision were before you today?
Ms. Shipman. I would not.
Mr. Greenwald. Nor would I.
Mr. Walberg. Then why is he still in the classroom? You are
Trustees of this preeminent institution of diversity, of free
thought, and you talk to professors who make horrific
statements like this. As I said, I could have addressed other
professors. You in fact, even pointed out that there were
numerous professors that you are looking at right now.
If they are only going to get a talking to, I am concerned.
I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Walberg. Dr. Adams, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to the
witnesses for being here today. Many of us here never would
have imagined that we would be concerned about the safety of
Jewish Americans in New York, of all places. Jewish Americans
have faced some of the highest levels of antisemitic incidents
since the FBI began monitoring.
Antisemitic incidents at U.S. college campuses have
increased in both number and intensity since October 7th, and
as a former professor myself for 40 years, I will tell you on a
campus that is unacceptable. 73 percent of Jewish college
students have experienced or witnessed some form of
antisemitism since the beginning of the school year, and only
one-third of Jewish students felt safe on campuses.
I think every student should feel safe on any campus that
they are studying on. Mr. Schizer, let me ask you, you are Co-
Chair of the Task Force on Antisemitism on your campus. How has
the task force recognized the unique challenges that Columbia
faces in dealing with protests and demonstrations, harassment
allegations and overall threats to segments of the student
population while being an urban and open campus, in one of the
largest cities in the world?
Mr. Schizer. It is a critical responsibility,
Congresswoman, for exactly the reasons that you described. This
is not an acceptable situation. I do want to say there are
wonderful things happening at Columbia too, and part of what
moves me is how many people have pitched in to make sure that
we deal with this problem, but the problem is there, and it is
not yet fixed.
I will say that our first step was to look at rules for
protests, and I am very grateful that our responses have been
taken so seriously. As I said, the University is implementing
all of our recommendations, but we are only just getting
started. We have another report coming out next month. We have
got to look at student orientations. We have got to look at the
way we train people who deal with students.
We have got to look at the policies for student groups to
make sure that people don't get excluded, and then we have more
reports that we have in mind for next year, including careful
research to get detailed insights into the people that have
been victims of this discrimination because we need to
understand it, and we need to stop it.
Ms. Adams. Thank you. You are expecting recommendations
from this? Okay. Columbia is over 270 years old. That is almost
three decades, or three centuries actually. It was not until
1873 that Columbia became an integrated institution, by
allowing its first black student by the name of James R. Priest
to enroll, who was also the son of a former slave.
Over history, your admissions enrolled have evolved as an
institution of higher education. My question to you is how do
the Trustees work to ensure that Columbia remains true to its
practice of progress, while making sure that it is welcoming
and responsive to demographic groups that it was not originally
designed to serve?
Mr. Schizer. Is that for me?
Ms. Adams. Yes it is.
Mr. Schizer. One of the great privileges of being at a
university is a diverse student body, people who come from very
different backgrounds who then meet each other, learn from each
other, learn with each other, and we need to be sure that that
continues to happen in all the ways that universities do well.
One of the challenges of the recent months is that I think
we have fallen short in various ways, but the aspiration is
there. Our commitment to be welcoming and also open has to
apply to everyone.
Ms. Adams. Thank you. Ms. Shipman, or Mr. Greenwald, would
you like to respond? You have got 57 seconds.
Mr. Greenwald. I agree with Professor Schizer bringing
diverse people to campus with coming from different
backgrounds, difference places in the country, different places
from around the world. It is enriching to their educational
experience.
Ms. Adams. Okay.
Ms. Shipman
Ms. Shipman. I agree with that, Congresswoman. I would also
say that fundamentally our institution has got to be about
respect, and that is sorely lacking on our campus right now,
and we can have diversity and different points of view, but if
people are not listening, and they are weaponizing their
sentiments, nobody is learning.
Ms. Adams. Yes, ma'am. Well, certainly the goal should be
to ensure that every member of the campus community can reach
their full potential without additional burdens of stereotypes
and biases, and barriers. I hope that Columbia can take, and
our universities can take some steps to support students on the
ground. With that, Madam Chairman, I yield back. I only have
about 6 seconds.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Dr. Adams. Ms. Stefanik, you
are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Stefanik. Thank you, Chairwoman. I want to followup on
my colleague, Rep. Walberg's questions regarding Professor
Joseph Masad. Let me be clear, President, that he was spoken
to. Who spoke with him?
Dr. Shafik. He was spoken to by his head of department and
his dean.
Ms. Stefanik. What was he told?
Dr. Shafik. I was not in those conversations. I think he
was told that language was unacceptable.
Ms. Stefanik. You are not aware of what he was told. What
was he told? What was he told?
Dr. Shafik. That that language was unacceptable.
Ms. Stefanik. Were there any other enforcement actions
taken? Any other disciplinary actions taken?
Dr. Shafik. In his case, he has not repeated anything like
that ever since.
Ms. Stefanik. Does he need to keep stating that the
massacre of Israeli civilians was awesome? Does he need to
repeat his participation in an unauthorized pro-Hamas
demonstration on April 4th? Professor David Schizer talked
about the lack of enforcement. Do you agree that this is an
issue with a lack of enforcement? When the policy of Columbia,
specifically stated on April 7th, April 5th said, ``I want to
make clear that it is absolutely unacceptable for any member of
this community to promote the use of terror or violence?'' You
have no action. No disciplinary action. Do you agree with how
the University has handled this?
Dr. Shafik. Congresswoman, we have 4,700 faculty at
Columbia. Most of whom spent all of their time dedicated to
teaching their students.
Ms. Stefanik. I am talking about the faculty members who
are supporting terror, and it is not just that case. Let me
bring your attention to Mohammad Abdou who was hired after the
October 7th terrorist attack against Israel. He on October
11th, posted, ``Yes. I am with Hamas and Hezbollah and Islamic
Jihad.'' He also decried false reports accusing Arabs and
Muslims of decapitating the heads of children and being
rapists.
We know that there were decapitations of babies, of
innocent Israel citizens, of seniors, of women, there were
rapes, and yet Columbia hired this individual as a professor.
How did that hiring process work? Were you aware of those
statements before the hiring?
Dr. Shafik. I share with you, your repugnance at those
remarks. I completely understand that. On my watch faculty who
make remarks that cross the line, in terms of antisemitism,
there will be consequences for that.
Ms. Stefanik. What are the consequences in this case?
Dr. Shafik. I have five cases at the moment who have either
been taken out of the classroom or dismissed.
Ms. Stefanik. Is he one of those?
Dr. Shafik. He will never work at Columbia again.
Ms. Stefanik. He has been terminated?
Dr. Shafik. He has been terminated. He has--not just
terminated, but his files will show that he will never work at
Columbia again.
Ms. Stefanik. He is currently not employed by Columbia?
Dr. Shafik. He is grading his students papers and will
never teach at Columbia again, and that will be on his
permanent record.
Ms. Stefanik. How are you changing the hiring processes,
because on your watch he was hired after he made these
statements publicly. How are you ensuring this has not happened
with your hiring process moving forward?
Dr. Shafik. When we hire people obviously, they have to
meet the academic qualifications, but we do an employment check
and a criminal record check. We also ask everyone to do an
attestation that they have never been accused of discrimination
or part of an investigation around harassment or
discrimination. That attestation has to be signed by all new
employees.
Ms. Stefanik. It did not work in this case?
Dr. Shafik. I think in this case, well he may not have been
subject to an investigation on discrimination or found guilty.
It has to be a found guilty.
Ms. Stefanik. Do you think you have a problem when the
hiring process of Columbia is hiring someone who makes those
statements?
Dr. Shafik. I agree with you.
Ms. Stefanik. Was hired after making those statements?
Dr. Shafik. I agree with you that I think we need to look
at how to toughen up those requirements. We do have a
requirement, but I agree with you, I think we need to look at
how we can make it more effective.
Ms. Stefanik. Let me ask about Professor Catherine Frank
from the Columbia Law School, who said that all Israelis
students who have served in the IDF are dangerous and should
not be on campus. What disciplinary action has been taken
against that professor?
Dr. Shafik. I agree with you that those comments are
completely unacceptable, and discriminatory.
Ms. Stefanik. I am asking you what disciplinary action has
been taken?
Dr. Shafik. She has been spoken to by a very senior person
in the administration, and she has said that that was not what
she intended to say.
Ms. Stefanik. Has she publicly apologized?
Dr. Shafik. I have suggested that.
Ms. Stefanik. You have suggested that. Has she done that?
Dr. Shafik. I think she will be finding a way to clarify
her position.
Ms. Stefanik. You see the concern here though with the lack
of enforcement? Do you see the concern that is speaking to
these professors is not enough, and it is sending a message
across the university that this is tolerated, these antisemitic
statements from a position of authority in professors in the
classroom, is tolerated. My time has expired, but I will have
multiple rounds of questions. I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx. Ms. Manning, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Manning. Thank you, Madam Chair. Professor Shafik, I
understand that all Columbia students go through an orientation
that includes anti-discrimination training. Does that training
include comprehensive education about antisemitism, including
the central role Israel plays in Judaism?
Dr. Shafik. Thank you for that question. In the past that
was not the case. That is something we are actively working on.
Ms. Manning. Is that taking place right now?
Dr. Shafik. We have trained our student affairs staff
across Columbia, but----
Ms. Manning. I think time is of the essence, and I hope you
will commit to getting that training in place immediately.
Dr. Shafik. Yes. It is being put in place now for our
incoming class.
Ms. Manning. Okay. The report issued by your task force on
antisemitism says that discrimination and harassment are not
protected speech. We have seen chants at Columbia calling to
globalize the intifada and much worse. During the intifada,
Palestinian suicide bombers blew up Israelis on city busses, at
restaurants, even at weddings.
In fact, Columbia alum Sarah Duker was killed in a bus
bombing in Jerusalem in 1996. Given this history, are calls to
globalize the intifada acceptable at Columbia? A yes or no
answer please.
Dr. Shafik. I personally find it unacceptable. Our current
rules have not specified that as not acceptable, but we sent a
very clear message to our community that that kind of language
is unacceptable.
Ms. Manning. I certainly hope you will rectify that in your
statements. The task force report also states that antisemitism
includes efforts to rationalize or endorse the murder of Jews,
or the destruction of the State of Israel. I would like to
submit for the record an article written by Professor Joseph
Masad that rationalizes the murder of Jews, and the destruction
of the State of Israel.
Chairwoman Foxx. Without objection.
[The Article of Ms. Manning follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Manning. Why is that professor still teaching at
Columbia.
Dr. Shafik. As I said, we have mechanisms in place where
faculty cross the line. We have done we have many cases, and
when we have any complaints from students saying they feel
uncomfortable there are disciplinary processes.
Ms. Manning. Is he still teaching?
Dr. Shafik. He is still on the faculty.
Ms. Manning. Is he still teaching
Dr. Shafik. I am not--I do not want to misspeak. I am not
sure he is teaching at the moment.
Ms. Manning. Okay. The task force report also states that
the mission of a great university requires uncompromising rigor
in uncovering facts and analyzing ideas. Now the article that I
just asked to be submitted to the record, demonstrates that
this professor has an extreme one-sided view of the
longstanding conflict in the Middle East, which view Israel as
illegitimate, and any attempt to destroy Israelis as
legitimate.
Is teaching this one-sided view of the conflict in the
Middle East in line with your mission to educate your students
with uncompromising rigor, and uncovering facts, and analyzing
ideas?
Dr. Shafik. Our objection is to give students a broad
exposure to many ideas. We have about 50 courses at the moment,
which cover Israeli and Jewish studies, the Middle East, and it
is important that they be exposed to all of those views.
Ms. Manning. No one student can take all 50 courses. Is
there an effort to make sure that both sides, of course I do
not agree that the murder of Jews and the destruction of Israel
is a side that should be taught, but are there for example, any
professors in your Middle East studies department who believe
that Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state?
Dr. Shafik. In fact, the head of that department is an
Israeli, and----
Ms. Manning. That does not answer my question.
Dr. Shafik. We have many faculty at Columbia who clearly
would take that view. I should also say that most of these
courses are electives, and students can choose which professors
they want to study with, but I would, you know, obviously we
want them to have a broad range of views.
Ms. Manning. I am worried about how we get at the
underlying issue that there is such antisemitism on your
college campus. Now step one is to make sure that there is
rigorous antisemitism training in your antidiscrimination
course that all your students are supposed to take.
Step two is having that same training for your faculty
members.
Dr. Shafik. Yes.
Ms. Manning. Step three is making sure that your Middle
East studies department does not ferment antisemitism by
teaching that Israel is illegitimate as a student as a State,
and that Jews should be murdered to get rid of Israel. Is that
a problem?
Dr. Shafik. Congresswoman, I agree with you. We are in
active discussions with Ted Deutch of the American Jewish
Congress on the kinds of educational programs that they have
developed, and we are looking at how we can integrate them. We
have done some of that already with our student affairs staff,
and we are working with the antisemitism task force to see how
to do it for next year.
Ms. Manning. I believe you have a poor curriculum at
Columbia. I suggest you insert that, and I would like to close
by asking that a statement by my colleague, Representative
Ritchie Torres, also be entered into the record. With that, my
time is expired, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx. Without objection, the material the
gentlewoman asked to be put in the record will be placed in the
record.
[The Information of Ms. Manning follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Foxx. Mr. Grothman, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Grothman. I will yield to Representative Stefanik for
her questions.
Ms. Stefanik. Just to followup, you should know this
President Shafik, but Masad is still in fact listed on the
Columbia website as Chair of the Academic Review Committee. Are
you aware of that?
Dr. Shafik. I would need to check that.
Ms. Stefanik. It is the website; it is right here.
Dr. Shafik. I do not want to misState because I----
Ms. Stefanik. He has not been removed as Chair.
Dr. Shafik. I would like to confirm that.
Ms. Stefanik. Do I have your commitment that he will be
removed as Chair today?
Dr. Shafik. I have my commitment that I will come back to
you and give you the facts first.
Ms. Stefanik. He has not been removed, so you said in front
of Congress under oath that----
Dr. Shafik. No, no. I said I am not sure.
Ms. Stefanik. You said that he was removed. Well, I will
tell you what. He is still listed as Chair. Let me ask the
Board of Trustees is that acceptable that he is Chair of this
Committee? Should he be removed today.
Ms. Shipman
Ms. Shipman. Congresswoman, you have put your finger on one
of the hardest issues we as Board Chairs face right now. I
think you can see our systems, from the videos you have played,
everything you are talking about our systems of rules and
enforcement.
Ms. Stefanik. Are broken. They are broken.
Ms. Shipman. We have worked tirelessly to----
Ms. Stefanik. My question to you Ms. Shipman, and I am the
one asking the questions here as a United States Member of
Congress is do you believe that he should be removed as Chair,
because currently he is listed as Chair on Columbia
University's website?
Ms. Shipman. I do not believe any professor at Columbia
should say anything like what--our professors have to be held
to a higher standard than our students, and I can tell you that
our Board----
Ms. Stefanik. You cannot say at this hearing that he should
be removed as Chair even though he violates University rules?
Ms. Shipman. Personally, I would not want him as Chair. And
we are looking at the issue of faculty and what we expect from
our specialty.
Ms. Stefanik. Mr. Greenwald, do you think he should be
removed as Chair?
Mr. Greenwald. His comments are abhorrent, and I believe
that one of the steps that we could take in terms of discipline
is to remove him from that leadership position.
Ms. Stefanik. Thank you for that direct answer. Just to let
you know, Mr. Abdou is not grading papers right now, he is on
campus at the unsanctioned anti-Israel, antisemitic event that
is being supported by pro-Hamas activists on campus, so that is
what Professor Abdou is doing at this very moment. I will give
you back your time.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. A Jewish member of the school's social
works faculty told the New York Times, ``When Jews speak up in
our school, they are met with you have white privilege, so shut
up, you are a colonizer, you are an oppressor. You are
reprehensible for the deaths of innocent Palestinians.'' Do you
want to comment on that?
Comment on that, and how can you get this sort of rhetoric
out of your faculty?
Dr. Shafik. I find those remarks reprehensible.
Mr. Grothman. How does this happen? That is not the
question, they are obviously indefensible. What is going on
here? You guys talk about diversity. How in the world does this
happen?
Dr. Shafik. Congressman, there are 4,700 faculty at
Columbia, and most of them----
Mr. Grothman. Please speak up.
Dr. Shafik. I said there are 4,700 faculty at Columbia, and
most the vast majority are dedicated.
Mr. Grothman. I will give you what I think the gist of the
problem is. You guys talk about diversity. Could you give me a
ballpark school of social work, your faculty across the board
of your Law School, how many do you think are more on the
republican leaning side, and how many on the democratic leaning
side?
Dr. Shafik. I am personally incredibly committed to
diversity. I am personally, incredibly committed to viewpoint
diversity, and it is one of the things that I want to bring to
Columbia. I do not know the answer to that because----
Mr. Grothman. Ball Park?
Dr. Shafik. We do not ask people. I honestly cannot answer
that because.
Mr. Grothman. How many do you--just in your own mind could
you rattle off like ten republican'ish faculty out of your
4,000 off the top of your head?
Dr. Shafik. Yes. I could actually, but you know, I did an
event just last week with just--it was an economist, it was a
democrat, and Glen Hubbard who is the republican. We have two
of our Fellows from our Institute for Global Politics who are
former Trump administration officials.
Mr. Grothman. Let me ask another question. On December 6th
the student group Columbia Social Workers for Palestine held a
disruptive Pro terrorism teach in, inside the school's lobby in
which they said on October 7th the Palestinian Liberation
fighters demonstrated they are refusal to be dominated and
called their effort a heroic struggle for liberation.
Dean Melissa Begg initially canceled the event because of
its advertising, but later she changed her mind and decided to
have the event. Were any of these students disciplined, or what
kind of message do you think that sent?
Dr. Shafik. I believe some of those I believe those
students were identified and they went through a disciplinary
process.
Mr. Grothman. According to a current student on October
10th, a request by Jewish students to the DEI office to
designate a room to grieve the mass murder of Jews, something
that should be per functionally agreed, can the concern about
the optics, given a lack of a similar room for Palestinian
students, was it inappropriate to deny Jewish students their
request they should be given that room or not?
Dr. Shafik. Sorry, I could not hear exactly. Denied access
to the room they requested to book. Is that the question?
Mr. Grothman. You have got to speak up.
Dr. Shafik. Yes. I think they should have been allowed, and
I believe that was corrected later.
Mr. Grothman. Why do not you aim for a little more
ideological diversity on campus?
Chairwoman Foxx. Mr. Grothman, your time is up. Mr. Sablan,
you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome to the
witnesses, and to everybody in this room. I have a question,
well antisemitism exists. We know it is a problem. It is a
major problem. Islamophobia exists. It is a major problem. All
kinds of different, but you at Columbia, you know it exists,
right? Any one of you.
Antisemitism is a problem at your school. Yes?
Mr. Schizer. Yes.
Mr. Sablan. It is a problem in many other schools and in
many other places in the Nation and in the world.
Mr. Schizer. Yes.
Mr. Sablan. At Columbia, you are all working to try as much
as possible to fix this problem, right? That is what I gather
from all of you today. Am I correct?
[Chorus of yes.]
Mr. Sablan. Thank you. Now I have been here 16 years, I am
not that long, but there are hearings where I ask a question,
and before you give me an answer I throw in another question.
Dr. Shafik, is there something you would like to say when you
are so unceremoniously cutoff from giving an answer to
questions you were asked by United States Members of Congress,
please?
Dr. Shafik. I guess what I would say is I am personally
very committed to viewpoint diversity at Columbia, and I'm very
personally committed to making sure that our faculty do not
cross the line in terms of discrimination and harassment. We
have mechanisms that are now being enforced, and on my watch,
they will be enforced.
I think many of these appointments were made in the past in
a different era, and that era is done.
Mr. Sablan. All right. Professor Schizer, do you have
anything to add, sir, to what you have been asked already?
Mr. Schizer. At the moment. No.
Mr. Sablan. Nobody cut you off, great. Ms. Shipman, I know
somebody cut you off, yes? Something to add?
Ms. Shipman. These are all legitimate questions. I
understand the urgency, and I appreciate that we are here.
Mr. Sablan. Okay. You do not, Mr. Greenwald, sir?
Mr. Greenwald. Nothing else. I am all right.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you. Thank you for being here. Expecting
all of these things, but I can see that you all are aware of
the issue, you are working toward the issue. I do not know if
what you guys figure out to do as your policy in Columbia
University will be a policy we can copy and fix all the
problems we have in the world.
This is an ancient problem, like Ms. Shipman said. It will
take time and effort to fix it, just as you know, we still have
to fix women rights, human rights, you know, employee,
everything. Many things, but at Columbia I am confident, I am
convinced that you guys know the problem exists, and that you
are trying to do something to fix it. For that, I yield the
remainder of my time. Thank you.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Sablan. Mr. Allen, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Chairwoman. Well, as you can see, I
think the concern is unanimous that we have all been troubled
by antisemitic activities occurring at your campus and around
the country, and around the world. As the oldest and most
established democracy in the region of Israel exemplifies the
core values of freedom and democracy.
In fact, I tell my colleagues that Washington, DC. is not
the center of the universe. Jerusalem is the center of the
universe. In fact, I read and researched that you have an
undergraduate and graduate degree school of religion at
Columbia University. Is that correct?
Dr. Shafik. We have affiliated institutions, union
theological seminary and the Jewish theological seminary, as
well as a Department of Religion at Columbia.
Mr. Allen. All right. In that degree program, I did not
research exactly what you teach, but are you familiar with
Genesis 12:3?
Dr. Shafik. Probably not as well as you are, Congressman.
Mr. Allen. Well, it is pretty clear. It was a covenant that
God made with Abraham and that covenant was real clear. If you
bless Israel, I will bless you. If you curse Israel, I will
curse you. Then in the New Testament it was confirmed that all
nations would be blessed through you. You did not know about
that?
Dr. Shafik. I have heard that now that you have explained
it, yes. I have heard that before.
Mr. Allen. Okay. It sounds familiar. Do you consider that a
serious issue? I mean do you want Columbia University to be
cursed by God of the Bible?
Dr. Shafik. Definitely not.
Mr. Allen. Okay. Well, that is good. Here is the deal. We
got freedom of speech in this country, and freedom of religion,
yet we also have Moses looking down on an entire body of
Congress who gave us the law, which most of our laws were made
and are supposed to be enforced, came from the original law.
What we have today is a lawless land. We have lawless
universities that are overrun by people who are threatening to
kill other students, who are attacking other students, and
creating fear in this country? We have a constitution that
requires us to treat other folks as we would like to be
treated, which is also in the New Testament?
I mean maybe you should have a course, and you know, you do
not have to believe it, but you know, the Bible is an
incredible book. There is a lot of history there, and you do
not have to believe it, but you need to know what is in there.
Maybe you should have a course suggested for those who are
having problems with all of this on the Bible, and what is in
the Bible, and kind of what will happen if, you know, under the
wrath of God.
I mean we have above the American Flag in our Chamber, in
God We Trust. I mean what God is that? Do you understand why we
are here? This is a serious issue. Would any of the other Board
care to--what do you know about this issue, and how do you feel
about it? I mean what are your feelings on what young people
are being indoctrinated by these professors to believe this
stuff, and they have no idea that they are going to be cursed
by God.
The God of the Bible, and the God over our flag. What are
your thoughts?
Ms. Shipman. Congressman, my thoughts are that you are
right that we have a moral crisis on our campus, and I find as
I have said, you are probably tired of hearing it. I find the
behavior of some of our students, some of our faculty,
unacceptable, and I think we have a variety of tools to deal
with that we have to be able to have rules that make sense.
We have to be able to enforce them because people learn
from consequences. We have to have order. Then we need deep
antisemitism training as we heard the Congresswoman talk, this
is essential. We must train people on what this is, and finally
I think we need education.
Mr. Allen. Well, I am just about out of time, but you need
to know that also, you know, education is important. Knowledge
is important, but the beginning of wisdom is the fear of God. I
yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Allen. Ms. Stevens, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Stevens. Dr. Shafik, is it safe to say that 99 percent
of your students are over the age of 18? Do you happen to know
how many are under the age of 18?
Dr. Shafik. Yes. That is safe to say.
Ms. Stevens. We have got the undergrads, we have got the
graduates, we have adult students, and I am in the minority
party, so we did not have a ton of say in who was participating
in today's hearing. We have had several hearings about rising
antisemitism and abhorrent antisemitism, and I see that there
are students in this audience, and there are students outside
this Committee room.
Your voices are entirely important here. Your lived
experience is very important. I certainly have the where were
you on 10/7 moment. I was with Jewish constituents at home when
I was seeing this war unfold, and the horrors unfolded. My
immediate thought was oh dear, our college campuses are going
to erupt.
I have been a Member of Congress who has been very
dedicated to the Jewish student experience, and the protection
of it, and we are throughout this country tragically and
alarmingly at a boiling point as it pertains to antisemitism on
college campuses. To every single person in this room wearing
the kippah, who is a Jewish student, who stands alongside
Israel, and fellow Jewish Americans, you belong.
You have a safe space here in the Congress, and you deserve
to have a safe space on your campus. I personally had no
thought of every applying to Columbia, or any of these other
fancy universities that were coming to our committee to talk
about what is going on, but I think we would be having a much
better hearing if we had students here.
I had the privilege of talking to a Columbia Jewish student
just yesterday, and what he shared with me was unbelievable. I
do not know what is going on with you all in the
administration, frankly you have a D report card from the ADL.
I hear you, that you say these things are terrible, and yet
they are happening.
The message to the students, and I was an antiwar protestor
in college myself. I was there when we went into Iraq. I did
not want to see us do that, but you cannot call out war while
calling out the death and destruction of another group of
people. You cannot do that.
Protests and events, they get unwieldly. I am an elected
official. I have town halls and all this and that, and we
understand what happens. Let us be really clear here about
human dignity and where we are going. We have a vote that we
are taking in the next day or two, a resolution on condemning
Iran's attacks on Israel.
Again, it is from the majority party. I would like to, as a
Congress, be having more nuanced conversations and protections.
I come from a very diverse beautiful place in this country, and
I listen, and I hear from all of my constituents all over.
Where and how are we going to stand up if we're against war,
and we are against death and destruction here as a Congress, we
have got to take responsible votes.
To the students, I think that is how I want to use my time.
I want to see Columbia and all these other places that are
failing on their ADL report card to improve. We have got to
improve. We have got a responsibility to improve. We are doing
it in the Congress. We employ young people here. We have
interns here. I yield back. Thank you.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Ms. Stevens. Mr. Banks, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Banks. President Shafik, I understand you are very
proud of the Columbia University School of Socal Work, right?
Dr. Shafik. Yes. It is the oldest social work school in the
country.
Mr. Banks. Yes. Can you define for us the word
Ashkenormativity?
Dr. Shafik. I am not familiar with that term. I believe it
appeared in a student glossary that was prepared by a group of
students.
Mr. Banks. It appears in the orientation guidebook that is
given to all of the students at the School of Social Work, but
you cannot define it for us?
Dr. Shafik. No. I am saying I am not----
Mr. Banks. You seem to be familiar?
Dr. Shafik. I do not use that term. I do not know that
term. I believe that glossary was prepared by students for
other students. I do not think it is a part of----
Mr. Banks. You agree, it is handed out to all of the
students who are at the orientation. I mean that is what it is.
It is the orientation glossary of terms for incoming students
at the School of Social Work, so----
Dr. Shafik. I do not think it is a product of the School of
Social Work. I think a group of students put this together.
Mr. Banks. It is handed out to students at the School of
Social Work. Let me read to you how Ashkenormativity is defined
by your--you do not know if it comes from students, or
professors?
Dr. Shafik. It comes from students.
Mr. Banks. At your school, but Ashkenormativity is defined
as a system of oppression that favors white Jewish folks based
on the assumption that all Jewish folks are Ashkenazi, or from
Western Europe. Do you have a response to that definition of
Ashkenormativity? Is that appropriate? This is handed out to
your students.
Dr. Shafik. By other students. It is not a product of the
faculty of Columbia University.
Mr. Banks. It is handed out to your students. Obviously,
you allow this to be handed out to your students. Is that
appropriate?
Dr. Shafik. As I said, this is not a product of the
faculty, of the administration. It is something that a group of
students produced. I do not agree with it. I think it is not
very useful. I do not condone it.
Mr. Banks. Okay. Can you help me understand something else?
I did not go to an Ivy League school admittedly. Can you
explain why the word ``folks'' is spelled F-O-L-X throughout
this guidebook, and in other places at the School of Social
Work? What does that mean? A serious question.
Dr. Shafik. They do not know how to spell. I mean I am not
familiar with that spelling.
Mr. Banks. I do not find it a laughing matter.
Dr. Shafik. No. I am not laughing either. I think it is--I
really do----
Mr. Banks. You are denying that this is an official product
of the school, but this is handed out to all of your--you are
aware that it is handed out to all of your students, and you
are not doing anything to stop it.
Dr. Shafik. As I said, it is not an official product of the
administration.
Mr. Banks. Is this how Columbia University spells the word
folks?
Dr. Shafik. No.
Mr. Banks. Okay. Does Columbia University recognize the
word, because it is not found in the Webster's dictionary, or
anywhere else, Ashkenormativity. Is that an acceptable term at
Columbia University?
Ms. Shafik. Congressman, I am with you. I agree with you
that I do not find this a meaningful way of----
Mr. Banks. This is handed out on your watch.
Dr. Shafik. As I said, this is not a product of Columbia
University.
Mr. Banks. To the Board of Trustees. Is this appropriate?
Either one of you?
Mr. Greenwald. That term is shockingly offensive,
Congressman.
Mr. Banks. Ma'am?
Ms. Shipman. We had discussions about that memo on the
Board, and my understanding is that we have asked that anything
that is looking as though it is orientation materials in any
way, be run by the Dean, and I think that is the agreement. As
President Shafik has said, we are not going to be able to limit
what individual students say to each other.
We do not like it. It is not the kind of learning we
promote at Columbia, obviously.
Mr. Banks. You understand how this fosters an environment
of antisemitism when the President even admits that she doesn't
know if this is an official document of the school, or written
by students, but it's still allowed to be handed out to your
students.
Ms. Shipman. It is outrageous.
Mr. Banks. It fosters--it is the reason that we hold this
hearing. It fosters an environment of antisemitism at your
university. President, are you going to stop this from being
handed out again to incoming students at the orientation of the
School of Social Work?
Dr. Shafik. We will make sure that it is not part of any of
orientation process.
Mr. Banks. President Shafik, can you name a real world
example of a system of oppression that favors white Jewish
folks? Can you give us an example?
Dr. Shafik. No.
Mr. Banks. Do you believe that white Jewish folks are
privileged, that is they are oppressors? Do you believe that?
Dr. Shafik. No.
Mr. Banks. This is what is being fed to your students. It
is despicable. You have not done anything about it, you should
do something about it. I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. If this is a document produced
by the students, I would be interested in knowing if Columbia
is paying for this document to be produced to distribute be
distributed. Ms. Leger Fernandez, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Ranking
Member, and thank you to the witnesses for joining us today.
The antisemitism experienced by Jewish students at Columbia
University and universities across the country is unacceptable.
I have met with several Jewish students from not several,
but lots of Jewish students from across the county who have
endured racial slurs, and threats, and my heart breaks each
time I hear their stories, which I think it breaks for
everybody on this Committee, and on the panel.
Antisemitism is a century's old form of hatred rooted in
white supremacy. It is also a form of hatred that has sadly
been stoked and given a platform by some in the republican
party. Madam Chair, I would like unanimous consent to enter
into the record the article from Politico titled, ``Donald
Trump Dined with White Nationalist Holocaust Denier Nick
Fuentes.''
Chairwoman Foxx. Without objection.
[The Information of Ms. Leger Fernandez follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Leger Fernandez. In case we do not remember, President
Trump's remarks after the antisemitic white nationalist rally
in Charlottesville in 2017, Madam Chair, I would like unanimous
consent to enter into the record the article from the Atlantic
titled, ``Trump Defends White Nationalist Protesters, Some Very
Fine People on Both Sides.''
Chairwoman Foxx. Without objection.
[The Information of Ms. Leger Fernandez follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Leger Fernandez. This Committee has held three hearings
on antisemitism on collage campuses, but not one of these
hearings has considered a bill to actually address the scourge
of antisemitism. In fact, last fall House republicans proposed
a 25 percent budget cut to the office that's actually
investigating and can take action against universities if there
is antisemitism on campuses that is actionable.
The Committee could be more productive on this issue and
hold a hearing on Congresswoman Manning's bipartisan, bicameral
bill, H.R. 7921, The Countering Antisemitism Act. The bill
would designate a senior official at the Department of
Education to counter antisemitism on college campuses, among
other solutions, provide data, get us the information we need
so we can actually take action.
We must do more than complain. We need to take action. We
need to actually have solutions. Dr. Schizer, as Co-Chair of
Columbia's task force on antisemitism, would you support the
kind of legislation that gives us more data, and a mechanism to
fight antisemitism?
Mr. Schizer. Data is critical because we need to know more
about the issues that we are addressing, and I have seen
Congresswoman Manning's bill, and I think it is very well
crafted.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you. It has lots of provisions
that actually would assist with the issues that we've heard
about today. I would also point out that antisemitism is not
the only form of hatred rising in our schools. It is not the
only form of hatred that is impacting our children's, our
student's ability to learn.
Islamophobia, and hate crimes against LGBTQ students have
also recently spiked. They have led to deaths by suicide,
harassment, but this Committee has not held a single hearing on
these issues. The rise in hatred across the United States is
not good for learning. It is bad for democracy.
We need to find a way to heal and have our students and
have our entire nation understand that we are indeed one nation
under God, different forms of Gods that we worship. That we can
come to understand each other as related, and as connected and
respect each other, and not tear each other down. That is when
we truly start learning to prosper and thrive.
I look forward to working on the kinds of solutions that
get us to this point. I hope this Committee can be part of the
solutions, and with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. Mr. Owens, you are recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Owens. Thank you. Thank you very much. Back in
December, I made a statement that I have seen this movie
before, and that seems like it has not changed. I grew up in
the deep south, 1960's, the days of KKK, Jim Crow and
segregation. My first exposure to white Americans was not until
I was 16 years old.
I was one of four black athletes that integrated into an
all white high school, and remember vividly the morning after
Martin Luther King's assassination, I walked into a high school
courtyard and seeing spray painted on the wall in red, ``Ding
Dong the King is Dead.''
Let us fast forward to the experience of 2024. If I came to
Columbia Campus, what would be the response of members of my
race if they were harassed by KKK bigots, marked, carving in
wood, spit upon, hit with a stick, ostracized, would these same
bigots and racists be allowed to protest at Columbia's campus
spewing anti-hate, anti-black hate speech?
Instead of wearing the white KKK hoods, would these coward
be granted free speech status if they hid their faces behind
black masks, and full head scarves? At a total cost of
$90,000.00 per year, would black students be forced to attend a
class of a tenured Columbia professor, who are discussing the
pass events of a massacre of black men and women, and children,
black girls being raped, and black men being lynched.
Would speak in glowing terms of this event as stunning,
awesome, and astonishing? President, I would like to ask you
would this treatment of black Americans be tolerated for 1
second?
Dr. Shafik. What you have described, Congressman, is
completely unacceptable. I too grew up in the south in the
1960's and share that experience.
Mr. Owens. Yes or no, would this be tolerated for 1 second?
Would this be tolerated, this treatment of black Americans for
1 second on Columbia's campus?
Dr. Shafik. Absolutely not.
Mr. Owens. Okay. I just want to continue this because if
this would not be tolerated for blacks, why has it been for
months and years? We are talking about a professor who goes
back 20 years now. This guy has been around a long time. Why is
it that Jewish Americans can then be treated by these bigots
and bullies in this manner?
Dr. Shafik. It is not tolerated, and it is not acceptable.
Over the last 6 months we have done everything we can and have
worked tirelessly to improve our policies.
Mr. Owens. Okay. Let me just say this real quickly. Let me
tell you why I think these two standards are prevalent. At
Columbia's core, the core teaching values are DEI and CRT,
which are racist and antisemitic teachings of Marxism. The
racist beliefs are that blacks are hopeless, weak and an
oppressed race that needs protection and pity of the white
race.
Antisemitic beliefs are that the Jewish race is the
oppressor race, and that all minorities need to be protected
from them, and therefore hate it. If you ever wondered why the
heinous crimes of October 7th never moved the needle of empathy
at Columbia, this is why.
I personally think that it takes a true lowlife, repugnant
human being to make the statement that the massacre of innocent
men and women and children, the raping of girls, the beheading
of children, the burning alive of human beings, was stunning,
awesome and astonishing.
What truly speaks volumes is the moral compass of Columbia,
that this rabid antisemite is still on your payroll today. He
has gotten cocky, and for 20 years he has done the same thing.
It is just a little tip of the iceberg of what is going on
there, and what has been taught in our classes.
There is a statement from a Jewish student, it is
impossible to exist as a Jewish student at Columbia without
running face first into antisemitism every single day. Jew
hatred is do deeply embedded into the campus culture, it has
become casual among students, faculty, and neglected by the
administrators. Do you agree with this statement, President?
Dr. Shafik. I had met those students and heard those words
in the listening sessions that I have been holding. I believe
in leadership by presence and walking around, and I listened to
those students, and it has distressed me hugely.
Mr. Owens. Let me just--I am sorry, I hate to cut you off,
I just have a few seconds here. Let me tell you what my major
concern is, there are thousands of Columbia students coming
from countries that hate America, and the other democracy in
that region, Israel. How does this work?
International students paying a total of $90,000.00 a year
upfront, skip classes and demonstrate, bully Americans, burn
American flags, stop traffic in our countries as they shout,
``Death to America.'' In some kind of way, they still get a
degree. I think most of us, unless they are genius, most of us
spend 100 percent of our time trying to pass our courses,
particularly at $90,000.00 per year.
I am running out of time. I will just say this. I would
like to know how many of these folks are actually graduating,
and what the degrees are, and how they are getting paid to come
to our campus and bully our kids the way they are right now,
and with that I would like to yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. Mrs. Hayes, you are recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. I would like to start before I get
into my questions by saying that I am a woman of deep personal
faith. My faith forces me to respect the faith of others. The
injection of biblical theology into this Committee hearing is
inappropriate.
If we were to talk about that, I would say that my faith is
used as a shield to protect others, and not a sword to hate or
harm others. I guess I call myself a Matthew 25 Christian.
There are a few things that I would like to clarify, or have
the witnesses clear up before I get into my questions.
Professor Schizer, my colleague suggested that students are
getting away with hitting Jewish students on campus. Can you
clarify that if someone physically attacks another student that
it is not just antisemitism, it is also assault?
Mr. Schizer. Absolutely.
Mrs. Hayes. Does the university take action in those
matters?
Mr. Schizer. The university has to take action in those
matters.
Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. Dr. Shafik, it is my understanding
that the Committee was told yesterday that Professor Massad is
under investigation. Is that correct?
Dr. Shafik. I would like to confirm that in writing if you
do not mind.
Mrs. Hayes. I cannot hear your answer.
Dr. Shafik. I said I would like to confirm that in writing.
Mrs. Hayes. Can you also clarify that he no longer holds a
leadership position?
Dr. Shafik. I would like to confirm that in writing, and
I'm happy to followup with the Committee on that matter.
Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. Can you get those things to the
Committee as soon as this concludes?
Dr. Shafik. Absolutely.
Mrs. Hayes. I would appreciate that. There is no place for
discrimination in education, no place at all. It should be the
goal of all institutions at every level to create safe
environments for students, free from harassment and violence.
The rise in antisemitism in college campuses is unacceptable.
According to the ADL who released data yesterday, 2023 was
the worst year for antisemitic incidents since the ADL began
recording more than four decades ago. There were 8,873
incidents reported across the United States in 2023, an
increase of 140 percent compared to 2022, which was also a
record setting year.
According to that same report, Connecticut saw a 170
percent increase in antisemitic incidents in 2023. Islamophobia
and anti-Muslim sentiments have also increased on college
campuses.
I applaud the Biden administration for releasing the
national strategy to counter antisemitism, and the
investigations by the Department of Education Office of Civil
Rights for antisemitism at higher education institutes. This is
not a problem that any one person or one group can solve, and
we should be working here today on solutions.
It is equally as important for school administrators to
change the culture on their campuses. President Shafik, in your
testimony you stated that in October 2023, you quickly formed a
task force. In the March 2024 report, the task force made a
series of recommendations that we heard today.
Can you tell us has Columbia University begun to implement
any of the recommendations made by the task force, and if so,
what are there?
Dr. Shafik. Yes, we have. In fact, our new demonstration
policy was endorsed by the task force, and they had input into
the idea of basically setting aside space where demonstrations
could happen, so students who do not want to hear certain words
do not have to hear them. That is already now implemented.
Mrs. Hayes. I am sorry. Are there any enforcement
mechanisms for those policies?
Dr. Shafik. Yes. If students do not adhere to those rules,
the demonstration policy outlines a series of disciplinary
measures that would result
Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. I know that there is a challenge of
creating rules that appropriately distinguish between free
speech and hate speech, but can you tell me what impact would
an increase in funding have on the Department's ability to
respond to the rise in antisemitism? You heard my colleagues
say that funding, that does specifically this, has been cut?
Dr. Shafik. Is that to me?
Mrs. Hayes. Yes, I am sorry.
Dr. Shafik. Yes. We would we know that there are a number
of cases before the Department of Education around these
issues. We would welcome guidance from the Department of
Education as we try and define the boundaries, particularly
around speech, so it would be helpful to us.
Mrs. Hayes. Guidance without money will not help you
achieve these goals.
Dr. Shafik. Yes. It would be helpful I think from our
perspective to get such information.
Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. I have no further questions. I yield
back.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mrs. Hayes. Mr. Good, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Good. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will direct this
first to Dr. Shafik. What does it say about college campuses
like Columbia's today, that we are sitting here having a
congressional hearing to discuss significant antisemitism,
prevalent to a large degree on campuses like yours, and pro-
terrorism sympathies on campuses like yours, how troubling is
that to you? What does it say about our college campuses today
and we are here doing this?
Dr. Shafik. I am very troubled. I would say that we have
37,000 students, and I think the numbers that we are talking
about who are crossing these lines are a very, very small
number of our students.
Mr. Good. Okay. Let me stop you there. Let me stop you
there. Have there been any anti-Islamic demonstrations on
campus, any anti-Muslim demonstrations on campus, any anti-Arab
demonstrations on campus, anything like that happened?
Dr. Shafik. There have been many pro-Israeli demonstrations
on our campus.
Mr. Good. No, that is not what I asked you.
Dr. Shafik. There have been many incidents.
Mr. Good. The answer would be no; correct?
Dr. Shafik. Yes, sorry.
Mr. Good. Okay, thank you. To the Board members if I may,
what does it say about our college campuses today that we're
having a hearing about antisemitic sympathies on campus,
expressions on campus on a large scale and pro-terrorist
expressions on campus on a significant scale? What does that
say about college campuses today like Columbia's? Anyone want
to answer that?
Ms. Shipman. Congressman, I think it says we have a lot of
work to do. It is shocking.
Mr. Good. What does it say about what is happening on our
college campuses, that this would even be an issue to such
large degree, that we are holding yet another congressional
hearing on this subject.
Ms. Shipman. I think personally, I think it says that we
have lost our way in terms of what we expect from each other in
a learning community and in our society. I think we have got to
learn to listen to all sorts of diversity, and we have to
commit to speech that is not laced with hate and is not just
meant to provoke for----
Mr. Good. All right. Thank you very much. Appreciate your
efforts to try to answer that. President Shafik, as you know,
on March 24th, just 3 weeks ago and 5 months after the October
7 terrorist attack in Israel, a coalition of a reported 94
Columbia student organizations, led by Students for Justice in
Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace, held an event with guest
speakers who are connected to and supportive of known terrorist
organizations.
Khalid Barakat spoke at the event. He has been identified
as a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of
Palestine, a group that we, the United States, has designated a
foreign terrorist organization.
Another speaker was Charlotte Kates, who is affiliated with
the Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network, which is
designated as a terrorist group by Israel. What does it say
that we allowed that event to take place on campus, remotely,
but hosted on campus, held on campus, what does that say about
Columbia today?
Dr. Shafik. We did not allow that event to happen. Students
applied to host that event at Columbia. We twice said no. They
then tried to host it at our neighbor Barnard, who also said
no. They then decamped to a dorm room and held it online.
We immediately, as soon as we notified the FBI, we brought
in special investigators and----
Mr. Good. Well, let me stop you there. When did you learn
this event was going to take place, or was trying to be held?
Dr. Shafik. We learned on the day, and then we immediately
contacted the FBI.
Mr. Good. Were any safe spaces provided or other supportive
measures created for students who might have felt threatened by
the efforts to have this on campus, to have these speakers
speaking remotely at least on campus? Were there any measures
taken for those students who might have felt threatened by
this?
Dr. Shafik. They were in a private space, and as I said,
all of the students who were involved in organizing that event
have been suspended.
Mr. Good. All right. One of the primary organizers of the
event was Students for Justice in Palestine, which was
suspended on November 10. But that was 4 months before the
event took place. How could they be able to organize an event
on campus? I mean what entities or groups would you prohibit
from organizing an event on campus? What is the criteria for
approval or disapproval to be able to do that?
Dr. Shafik. We were one of the first universities to
suspend Students for Justice in Palestine and the Jewish Voice
for Peace----
Mr. Good. They were still able to hold an event.
Dr. Shafik. They did not abide by our rules and held
unsanctioned events. We quickly realized I think that was a
very powerful symbol to say if student groups do not abide by
the rules, there will be consequences for them.
Mr. Good. I am sorry. With 8 seconds left, I am going to
have to stop you. The Columbia University newspaper contained
an op-ed from the Columbia University Apartheid Divest signed
by 94 supporting student groups that were part of the coalition
with Students for Justice in Palestine to host, organize the
event.
I would just like a response afterwards in writing as to
whether or not these groups who were also supportive, the other
94 groups, whether or not they would have been suspended or
have funds pulled or any consequences to the other 94 groups,
as reported in the Columbia University newspaper.
I apologize Madam Chairman for going over a little bit. I
yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. Your request to have an answer
is duly noted. Mr. DeSaulnier, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank all
the witnesses for being here. Ms. Shipman, I was taken by your
comment about when you were a young person and went to Columbia
from the Midwest, that you were taught--you were taught how to
think, not what to think.
In that context, we are dealing with a complex issue
historically, thousands of years in this instance. The use of
technology and political consultants, the theater of today is
quite remarkable, where you have a real legitimate, and I
appreciate the bipartisan focus on the legitimate issues around
hatred and prejudice.
The technology to me is really fascinating. What makes this
so unique to our time in this institution. Professors, have you
looked at that in terms of social media and how we are a lot of
work around, in this field, not in this specific field by
researchers at UVA, Harvard.
I think Susan Linn, her wonderful book at Who's Minding Our
Kids, how we are using what we have discovered about
neuroscience including prejudice and hatred and emotion and
using technology to make it much worse for very narrow
political reasons.
Have you looked at that, and I would like to followup,
given your history Ms. Shipman, in your career about how things
have changed in that regard, about how people get information
and how it is manipulated as we, as a culture and a
civilization, try to figure out what the guardrails are, and
the damage it causes in the meantime? Start with you Professor.
Dr. Schizer. This is a question for me, right sir?
Mr. DeSaulnier. Yes, no. First for you. Have you looked at
social media and how people get information?
Dr. Schizer. Yes. Congressman, it is very important that
you raised that issue, because one of the most frustrating
aspects of this is that people are posting anonymously, and
they are posting absolutely horrible, horrible things.
There are frustrations for all of us in trying to figure
out how to stop that. More fundamentally, we are very mindful
of the destructive aspect of this hate speech on social media.
Mr. DeSaulnier. It is not organic in many ways. It is
deliberately directed by people who want to divide people and
create problems. Have you looked at that? I am thinking about a
book, The Chaos Machine by a New York Times reporter who was
the person who actually reported that You Tube was directing
adolescent girls, right to the point where they could be
through their depression and anxiety, to show them how to
commit suicide.
This is being used in these political environments--is my
point right now.
Dr. Schizer. It is very troubling, yes.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Ms. Shipman, and the point that it is not
organic, that it is quite deliberate. Whether it is people in
the Russia or people in the United States doing this to people,
to divide us as opposed to your career, or how it has evolved--
--
Ms. Shipman. I have a lot of thoughts about this sir. I am
just trying to gather my thoughts. I think we--this is an issue
that our university has been investigating for a long time in
terms of the science, neuroscience, the flow of information at
our journalism school.
We have so many ways to look at this, and an important way
for our society. I know we are working with a Nobel Prize
winner, Maria Ressa, on this issue right now, disinformation. I
will say a couple of things.
I think the most fundamental thing I have learned in my
time on the Board at Columbia is that, and this is from our
incredible MindBrain Institute, which is just cutting-edge
neuroscience, when people feel fear and intimidation, they
cannot learn. I think I come back to the topic of this hearing,
that we can look at all of the reasons why there are certainly
new ways we all hate each other in our society right now, that
are distressing.
I think if we cannot provide fundamental safety for our
students, we now know, we are not just guessing, that we are
not allowing them to learn.
Mr. DeSaulnier. I wonder if you have any comments or
observations.
Dr. Shafik. Congressman, you are absolutely right, that
social media is part of the problem of and on this particular
issue, we have seen it as pernicious. I am particularly
uncomfortable with some of the anonymous channels, things like
SideChat.
Every student I meet, I tell them please get off Sidechat.
It is poisonous and probably the most egregious cases that we
have seen of antisemitism, Islamophobia, and racist comments
have been on social media on those anonymous channels. We would
welcome any improvement in content moderation which would
reduce that.
Mr. DeSaulnier. No, I really appreciate that. I am struck
by this and the previous hearing, that I wonder what Brandeis
and Holmes would be talking about if they were alive today, and
their context a very similar economic and world strife time and
World War I, where when they were discussing what is free
speech and screaming fire in a crowded theater.
I see the social media companies and technology companies
as being those folks, who are benefiting from strife, and this
is sort of an extreme example of how they are making,
monetizing us fighting against one another in a very, very
difficult position, where I think we would all agree that
hatred and prejudice cannot be tolerated. Thank you. I yield
back.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. DeSaulnier. Mrs. McClain,
you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. McClain. Thank you, Madam, Chair, and thank you all
for being here today to discuss this very important topic. I
think we have to go back to the beginning, and we have to
identify the problem before we can really figure out solutions
to the problem.
I want to start with you, Dr. Shafik. What is your
definition of antisemitism?
Dr. Shafik. For me personally, any discrimination against
people for their Jewish faith is antisemitism.
Mrs. McClain. Okay, I appreciate that. You set up a task
force. Do they share that same definition?
Dr. Shafik. Congresswoman, I know the chair of our task
force is next, sitting next to me.
Mrs. McClain. No, but you are the president. I would like
to hear from you first.
Dr. Shafik. I am happy to answer the question. I know he
would also.
Mrs. McClain. I am happy to do that, but I would like to
start with you, since you are the president, right? You own,
the buck stops with you.
Dr. Shafik. Completely.
Mrs. McClain. Do they share that same definition?
Dr. Shafik. I am pretty sure that they would share that
definition.
Mrs. McClain. Do not you think that would be a pretty
important thing to start with?
Dr. Shafik. Yes.
Mrs. McClain. Okay. Are you concerned at all about the
article by Sharon Otterman, which indicated that a Columbia
University Task Force set up to combat antisemitism on campus
in the wake of October 7th Hamas attack, is attempting to avoid
one of the most contentious issues in the university's debate
over the war.
Its members--this is, and I do not know if it is true or
not, so I would like to get your take.
Dr. Schizer. Not true.
Mrs. McClain. ``Its members have refused to settle on what
the definition of antisemitism is.'' From your opinion, this is
an inaccurate article.
Dr. Shafik. Yes.
Mrs. McClain. Okay, thank you.
Dr. Shafik. Professor Schizer would be the best person to
give you----
Mrs. McClain. I appreciate that. Professor, thank you. Do
you have a definition of antisemitism?
Dr. Schizer. Absolutely.
Mrs. McClain. Okay. Can you share it with us?
Dr. Schizer. Sure. It is bias against Jewish people, which
can manifest as ethnic slurs, stereotyping, Holocaust denial,
double standards as applies to Israel and antisemitic tropes.
Mrs. McClain. Wonderful, I appreciate that. This article is
in fact false?
Dr. Schizer. It is inaccurate, yes.
Mrs. McClain. Okay, thank you. I think we need to really
take a look at the facts. Now that we have a clear, defined
definition of what it is, what I am curious now, is what are
the consequences to one's actions? Ms. Shafik, Dr. Shafik, can
you share with us what the consequences are?
Dr. Shafik. The consequences for antisemitic behavior. I am
sorry, what are the consequences for antisemitic behavior?
Mrs. McClain. Yes ma'am.
Dr. Shafik. Yes. We one of the biggest things we focused on
is we want to make it easy, so that if there is any antisemitic
incident at Columbia, we know about it immediately. We have QR
codes all over the campus. We have a hotline. We have a
single----
Mrs. McClain. That is great. I am looking for an answer
though.
Dr. Shafik. Yes.
Mrs. McClain. What are the consequences for antisemitic
behavior?
Dr. Shafik. Yes. Once we know of an incident, we have
investigative capacity. We have invested hugely in expanding
that investigative capacity, and depending on the nature of the
incident, there are consequences ranging from people being
potentially suspended, being forced to get educated and trained
on antisemitism.
Mrs. McClain. Wonderful, and we have executed those?
Dr. Shafik. We are executing those, yes.
Mrs. McClain. Okay. My question to you, are mobs shouting,
``From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free'' or ``Long
live the Intifada,'' are those antisemitic comments?
Dr. Shafik. When I hear those terms, I find them very
upsetting, and I have heard----
Mrs. McClain. That is a great answer to a question I didn't
ask, so let me repeat the question. When mobs or people are
shouting ``From the river to the sea, Palestine must be free''
or ``Long live the Intifada,'' are those antisemitic
statements, yes or no? It is not how you feel; it is----
Dr. Shafik. I hear them as such. Some people do not. We
have sent a clear message----
Mrs. McClain. Is that yes? Is that yes?
Dr. Shafik. We have sent clear message to our communities--
--
Mrs. McClain. I am not asking about the message. Does that
fall under definition of antisemitic behavior, yes or no? Why
is it so tough?
Dr. Shafik. Because it is a--it is a difficult issue
because----
Mrs. McClain. I realize it is a difficult issue. Here is
the problem, is when people cannot answer a simple question and
they have a definition but then they cannot. Well, I am not
really sure if that qualifies. I am asking a simple question.
Maybe I should ask your task force. Does that qualify as
antisemitic behavior, those statements, yes or no.
Dr. Schizer. Yes.
Mrs. McClain. Yes, okay. Do you agree with your task force?
Dr. Shafik. We agree. The question is what----
Mrs. McClain. The question--so yes, you do agree that those
are--that is antisemitic behavior, and you should be--there
should be some consequences to that antisemitic behavior. We
are in agreement, yes?
Dr. Shafik. Yes.
Mrs. McClain. Thank you. I yield my time.
Chairwoman Foxx. The gentlewoman yields. Pursuant to the
previous order, the Chair declares the Committee in recess,
subject to the call of the Chair.
We do plan to reconvene in 5 minutes. I ask all the guests
to remain in their seats until the witnesses are allowed to
leave the room. The Committee stands in recess for 5 minutes.
[Recess.]
Chairwoman Foxx. The Committee will reconvene and come to
order following our recess. Mr. Bowman, you are recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. Bowman. Thank you so much Madam Chair and thank you to
the witnesses for being here. You know, as we all aim to fight
and end antisemitism once and for all, there is language and
there are actions and incidents that take place that are
clearly antisemitic, and then there are others where someone
may have said something or done something that they did not
quite understand that was wrong.
What I am hearing from students and people in my district
who go to Columbia is they feel that there is not the space for
divergent opinions or thoughts as it relates to State of Israel
or what is happening in Gaza right now.
Can you speak to how different points of view or
perspectives as it relates to the war in Gaza, criticism of the
State of Israel or something like that that is not antisemitic
but just a difference of opinion from other students?
How does that, how is that adjudicated or confronted? How
are we creating spaces for critical dialog and discussion that
may make people feel uncomfortable, but are not like hateful?
Can you speak to that first Madam President, and then we could
just go down the line and everyone gives brief comments to
that?
Dr. Shafik. Congressman, it is a very good point. We
launched at the end of last semester a program called Dialogue
Across Difference to do exactly what you are saying, which is
to give people tools to have difficult conversations where
people disagree but are respectful.
We have held, there have been maybe two to three events per
week at Columbia for students and for faculty.
Mr. Bowman. You said per week?
Dr. Shafik. Yes.
Mr. Bowman. Okay.
Dr. Shafik. To practice that sort and model that sort of
behavior.
Mr. Bowman. Are those, are those events well attended by
students with different points of view, coming together and
having this dialog?
Dr. Shafik. That is happening more. I will be candid with
you, that immediately after October 7th, the atmosphere was
tense.
Mr. Bowman. It was very hard; it was very hard.
Dr. Shafik. That is changing, and I am doing it myself
personally in my listening sessions with students from both
sides of the issues, and again those have been very emotional.
I have had students in tears in those sessions.
Mr. Bowman. Can we go down quickly? I know I do not have
much time. Can you just quickly respond to that?
Dr. Schizer. Thank you for the question. We are committed
to ensuring that students can articulate competing points of
view about extremely important issues like the Middle East,
like the current war, like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
and it would be a really unfortunate thing and a departure from
our mission as a university if we were suppressing points of
view.
We absolutely do not want to do that, and at the same time
we have free speech. We also have the responsibility not to
engage in discrimination.
Mr. Bowman. Of course. Now the time is moving, so I am
going to let you answer, but I am going to shift slightly. How
are we also fighting other forms of hate including Islamophobia
at the university, which I have heard is happening also at the
university as well? Can you two quickly respond to that?
Ms. Shipman. We are listening to all of our students. All
hate should not be welcome at Columbia.
I have personally met with a large number of Jewish
students and a lot of our Muslim students from the region who
do feel stressed and scared, scared about walking to class. I
mean we have to listen, and we have to allow for political
debate, as Professor Schizer said. That is a bedrock of our
democracy.
I spent 5 years living in the Soviet Union. I can tell you;
you do not want to no political debate. You do not want the
result of that, but we cannot let political debate cross into
hate. We have a special job as an educational institution.
Mr. Bowman. Uh-huh, absolutely.
Mr. Greenwald.
Mr. Greenwald. All hate is abhorrent. Further, the lessons
that we are learning coming out of the task force, those
principles will be applicable not just to antisemitism but to
other forms of hate as well.
Mr. Bowman. Absolutely. Just to ensure that there are
additional voices as part of this conversation, I want to enter
for the record, I have a letter here from over 600 faculty,
staff, students, parent and alumni of Columbia and Barnard,
expressing their commitment to open, honest inquiry on campus.
I ask unanimous consent to enter the letter into the
record.
Chairwoman Foxx. Without objection.
[The letters of Mr. Bowman follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Bowman. In the last 15 seconds that I have, Madam
President, can you respond to the, there was a so-called
chemical attack on campus at one point, targeting so-called
pro-Palestinian students. Can you quickly respond to that?
Dr. Shafik. It appears to have been an odorous substance
that was sprayed on demonstrators. The individuals involved
have been suspended from Columbia.
Mr. Bowman. Suspended from the school. They no longer
attend the school, the students who were involved?
Dr. Shafik. Correct, correct.
Mr. Bowman. Okay, thank you, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. Mrs. Steel, you are recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Steel. Thank you, Dr. Foxx. For over two decades,
Columbia's Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies
Department has been extremely hostile to Israel and Jewish
students.
Professor Joseph Massad, who vocally praised Hamas;
Professor Hamid Dabashi, who has made numerous antisemitic
remarks, including that ``Israelis have a vulgarity of
character and that it is bone-deep and structured to the
skeletal, you know, I cannot even pronounce, vertebrae of its
culture.''
Rashid Khalidi, a professor of your university now and
former PLO spokesperson, called Columbia's antisemitism task
force ``bigots and fanatics and right wingers and extremists.''
This is all on the record. Do you think this kind of conduct is
appropriate and acceptable, and what kind of action did you
take after these professors were talking like this? Yes.
Dr. Shafik. Congresswoman Steel, thank you for that
question. Before I answer it, I know Representative Hayes asked
me to confirm in writing about ongoing investigations of some
of the faculty that you've described. I just wanted to confirm
now that both Professors Massad and Franke are currently under
investigation for discriminatory remarks.
I just wanted to put that on the record for this occasion.
On the broader point that you raise, what I would say is that--
--
Mrs. Steel. Just before you go to that, how about the other
two professors?
Dr. Shafik. I am going to come to that.
Mrs. Steel. All three of them?
Dr. Shafik. Sorry. Which ones are you referring to?
Mrs. Steel. It is Professor Joseph Massad.
Dr. Shafik. Yes.
Mrs. Steel. Professor Hamid Kabashi and you hired Rashid
Khalidi, professor of your university, the former PLO
spokesperson.
Dr. Shafik. We do not have any ongoing complaints around
those other two professors. What I would say is since I have
been in this role, which I am just entering my ninth month, we
have put in place mechanisms so that if faculty cross the line
in terms of any harassing or discriminatory behavior, there
will be consequences.
We can remove people from leadership roles. We can--we can
discipline, you know, we can remove them from the classroom. We
can, in some cases have them removed from Columbia altogether,
and we have several cases like that.
We are making sure that going forward, faculty who cross
the line and discriminate or harass students on any issue,
there will be consequences.
Mrs. Steel. Yes. You know what? I am not just making it up.
This happened, and this is the statement that we took out from
the newspapers and other media. You really have to find out.
Nothing really happened to these three university professors,
on what they were talking about at these rallies.
Then let us just move on then. Columbia alumni have called
on the university to place the department into academic
receivership, as it has done for its English and Anthropology
Departments. Will you consider placing the department into
receivership?
Dr. Shafik. I guess academic departments at Columbia are,
there is not really a notion of receivership. What I would say
is--one of the things that I am very committed to is we have a
broad offering of almost 50 courses on Israeli, Jewish and
Middle Eastern Studies at Columbia.
We also have an opportunity I think at this moment, because
so many students are interested and there is so much demand and
need frankly for education about these issues, that we are
looking at expanding and hiring some new faculty to try and
broaden our approach, to make sure that we have some new and
fresh thinking in the areas of Israeli, Jewish and Middle East
Studies.
Mrs. Steel. What kind of broader thinking and what kind of
expansion are you talking about?
Dr. Shafik. We will be hiring additional faculty going
forward, that will bring new perspectives.
Mrs. Steel. Are--you are going to do all those background
checks and their records though, because your professors
already talk about this kind of statements, and this is not
really acceptable.
Dr. Shafik. We will do all of the background checks that
you would expect for our faculty, because it is a privilege to
teach at Columbia.
Mrs. Steel. It is not just the English and Anthropology
Departments, but do you consider the Middle Eastern, South
Asian and African Studies Department a balanced and well run
department? Over two decades they were extremely hostile to
Israel.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Ms. Steel. We will get answers
to your questions. Ms. Omar, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Omar. Thank you. President Shafik, I wanted to get a
clarification earlier. One of my colleagues asked if you have
you seen anti-Muslim protests on campus?
Dr. Shafik. We have had pro-Israeli demonstrations on
campus.
Ms. Omar. No, no, no.
Dr. Shafik. Not----
Ms. Omar. Just a protest that was against Muslims?
Dr. Shafik. No, I have not.
Ms. Omar. Have you seen one against Arabs?
Dr. Shafik. No, I have not.
Ms. Omar. Have you seen one against Palestinians?
Dr. Shafik. No, I have not.
Ms. Omar. Have you seen one against Jewish people? Have you
seen a protest saying we are against Jewish people?
Dr. Shafik. No. I have, I have seen----
Ms. Omar. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. There has
been a rise in targeting and harassment against anti-war
protestors, because it is been pro-war, and anti-war protestors
is what it seems like; correct?
Dr. Shafik. Correct. There has been----
Ms. Omar. Okay, thank you. Activists on campus including
Jewish students, black and brown, Arab and Muslim students. How
many of the organizations that were canceled in Columbia
involved Jewish students?
Dr. Shafik. One of the organizations was called Jewish
Voices for Peace.
Ms. Omar. Yes, and encompassed of Jewish students?
Dr. Shafik. Yes.
Ms. Omar. Okay, thank you. There is been a recent attack on
the democratic rights of students across the country. I was
appalled to learn that in April, Columbia suspended and evicted
six students for their involvement in the pro-Palestinian panel
event on campus.
It happened that all six students were peculiarly targeted
after the university brought in a team of private and former
police investigators. These investigators harassed, intimidated
Palestinian students at their homes, demanding to see students'
private text messages and sent threatening emails to the
leaders of those pro-Palestinian groups.
I would like to ask you to speak a little bit more to this
situation, and ask you if you guys have utilized private former
police investigators before, or is this the first time?
Dr. Shafik. This was a very serious case. We had students
who on an online call----
Ms. Omar. If you could shorten your answer, that would be
really appreciated.
Dr. Shafik. Of course, who invited people who are inciting
violence and that is unacceptable. We needed to get to the
bottom of it, and so that is why we brought private
investigators along with notifying the FBI----
Ms. Omar. How secure were you, these students that you
evicted and suspended were involved? Did you do any
investigation? Was there a hearing?
Dr. Shafik. They refused to cooperate with the
investigation, and so until they do so, they are suspended.
Ms. Omar. Okay, thank you. Then in January, there was--
there was an incident involving students that were protesting
that were attacked with a toxic chemical substance, leaving
many hospitalized. A lot of them did not receive support from
the school administrators.
Can you speak to what is happening with the investigation,
if you are cooperating, and why were not the students provided
any support after they experienced that attack?
Dr. Shafik. This is still with the police, and as far as we
know, we think it was an odorous substance, and we did reach
out to all of those students who said they were affected. Many
of them did not want support.
Ms. Omar. It took you guys more than 4 days to reach out to
students.
Dr. Shafik. No, I do not believe that is correct.
Ms. Omar. Okay. Will you respond, give me a written
response with the fact that you all responded right away to
those students?
Dr. Shafik. Yes, I would be happy to do that.
Ms. Omar. All right, appreciate that. It looks like there
has been a lot of doxing and harassment that has taken place.
What protections are students being provided?
Dr. Shafik. Yes. We created a doxing resources group to
support students. There were many students who were affected by
this, Muslim students, Jewish students and completely, you
know, other students. That group has, we had 90 students reach
out to that group to get support in terms of both technical
support, legal support, privacy scrubbing and so on----
Ms. Omar. Before I run out of time, I wanted to ask what,
what do your rules say about professors that harass students
online, like Professor Shai Davidai has done and professors who
directly attack you as the president, as a coward and a liar?
Dr. Shafik. As president, I am used to being attacked.
Attacking our students is unacceptable, and in that case, we
have had more than 50 complaints about that professor, and he
is currently under investigation.
Ms. Omar. Okay.
Dr. Shafik. For harassment and intimidation.
Ms. Omar. I would love to followup on that as well. Thank
you so much. I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. Mr. Kiley, you are recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kiley. President Shafik, earlier today the question was
posed are chants of ``From the river to the sea'' antisemitic,
and Professor Schizer, head of the Antisemitism Task Force at
Columbia gave a very clear answer, yes. You on the other hand
hemmed and hawed, and then eventually said I hear them as such.
Some people do not.
What are you talking about there? Who are these people that
you are referring to?
Dr. Shafik. Well, I think even surveys by the Anti-
Defamation League, and others have shown that even, that some
Jewish people do not hear that as antisemitic, whereas I would
say the majority do. It is one of those phrases that is heard
differently----
Mr. Kiley. That is who you were referring to, is the Jewish
population, some sector of it?
Dr. Shafik. Some yes, and I have received letters from our
Jewish faculty who say that they also do not think it is
antisemitic. I think Congressman, I think you put your finger
on a challenging issue.
We have sent a message to our community. All of the deans
of Columbia University, all 17 of them, for the first time
wrote a letter to the community saying these words are hurtful
and are heard in a hurtful way.
Mr. Kiley. Okay, that is good, and I am glad that Professor
Schizer was able to give us a very clear answer yes, but you
were not able to do so. I think if I were to go through a
number of other racial slurs and ask you if those are
offensive, if these are racist, I do not think you would say I
hear them as such, some people do not, would you?
Dr. Shafik. I think, I believe, I am happy to give you my
personal opinion, but I think the question that you are really
asking me is, are they forbidden to be said at Columbia?
Mr. Kiley. That is not what I am asking actually.
Dr. Shafik. Okay, all right. Well then, I am happy to give
you----
Mr. Kiley. I think we saw your instinct is that you are, I
am wondering who are you risking, who are you worried about
offending? That is my question.
Dr. Shafik. No, no, no. I feel like I am speaking as
president of Columbia, so that is the way in which I answered
those questions.
Mr. Kiley. Let us talk about Columbia. Are there
antisemitic professors on your faculty?
Dr. Shafik. I certainly hope not, and if I have any
evidence that there are, there will be consequences.
Mr. Kiley. You do not think there is evidence of
antisemitism among professors on your faculty?
Dr. Shafik. We have seen some cases, and there have been
consequences.
Mr. Kiley. You mentioned Mr. Abdou and Mr. Massad. You said
they are both under investigation; is that correct?
Dr. Shafik. Mr. Massad is under investigation. Mr. Abdou
has been told he will not work at Columbia again.
Mr. Kiley. He has been fired?
Dr. Shafik. He is leaving.
Mr. Kiley. I do not understand the distinction there. Fired
versus he is leaving?
Dr. Shafik. Yes. No, he is, he is leaving, and he has a
written record on his record that says----
Mr. Kiley. He was not fired, but he is voluntarily leaving?
Dr. Shafik. No, no, no. He has been told he----
Mr. Kiley. He has to leave?
Dr. Shafik. Yes, he has been told he has to leave.
Mr. Kiley. Okay. Do you think he is antisemitic?
Dr. Shafik. He has written and said things which are in
support of Hamas, which I find very problematic and----
Mr. Kiley. When, by the way, was he told to leave?
Dr. Shafik. I want to make sure I have the right date for
you, but it was in the, you know, sometime in the last few
weeks is my recollection.
Mr. Kiley. In the last how long?
Dr. Shafik. I would be happy to get it to you in writing,
because I want to make sure I give you the right date.
Mr. Kiley. Did you retain counsel in preparation for this
hearing?
Dr. Shafik. We had lots of, you know, we did a lot of
preparation for this hearing, yes.
Mr. Kiley. Okay. How many hours would you say you spent
preparing?
Dr. Shafik. Well, this is a very, very serious matter, and
so I have spent many, many hours.
Mr. Kiley. Many, many hours, and you have given us very
divergent responses as to some of the worst offending
professors about how they have been handled. Why is that? Why
cannot you just give us the facts?
Dr. Shafik. I have offered to give you the facts. I am
happy to provide you with the details. I just do not recall the
exact date when he was notified, and I want to make sure I am
giving you an accurate answer. It is a very serious matter.
Mr. Kiley. Sure. Would you be willing to make just a
statement right now to any members of the faculty at your
university, that if they engage in antisemitic words or
conduct, that they should find another place to work. Can you
make that statement?
Dr. Shafik. I would be happy to make a statement that
anyone, any faculty member at Columbia who behaves in an
antisemitic way or in any discriminatory way should find
somewhere else to go.
Mr. Kiley. Thank you. Do you believe that the BDS movement
is antisemitic?
Dr. Shafik. Columbia has on numerous occasions refused to
well, sorry, that is not the right--has faced the issue of BDS.
In fact, we had----
Mr. Kiley. Do you think it is antisemitic, the BDS
movement?
Dr. Shafik. I think it is a political movement that is
advocating a boycott or a sanctioning process which is
focused----
Mr. Kiley. Once again, who are you worried about offending
by making a very clear statement on this?
Dr. Shafik. No, I am-happy to make a clear statement on it.
Mr. Kiley. Okay. Well, I want to close my questioning by
giving you an opportunity to address some of the students who
are here, because we have some really courageous students who
have come, who have testified, who have met with our committee,
who were at our press conference this morning.
Many of them could not get into the room because it was too
small. They have told harrowing stories of what they have
endured on your campus, and they say that the response of your
administration has been inadequate, has been insufficient.
Are they wrong? I mean what would you say to these
students?
Dr. Shafik. I have met with these students myself. In fact,
I have met many of the students who are in this room, and we
have talked about it. I think I have assured them that there
are times when I have been very frustrated with the policies
and capacity that we have at Columbia to respond to this.
I have been working tirelessly to fix those problems and
improve our response, and I think we can show concrete
improvements in the way we have been handling antisemitism
during my time.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Kiley. Ms. McBath, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. McBath. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member
Scott. Thank you to those of you that are here as our witnesses
today. I have read your testimoneys.
We have had multiple hearings on this issue of antisemitism
on campuses, and I really do appreciate the Chair's commitment
to continuing to have these conversations, thank you. During
one of them, I brought up the Anti-Defamation League's most
recent data from their annual audit of antisemitic incidents,
and I shared alarming data about the frequency of these acts of
hate.
Last time this data was published, it translated to over
ten incidents a day, a disturbing amount that is truly in its
own right. According to the newest data published just a few
days ago, that number has now skyrocketed to 24 incidents per
day, basically one per hour.
This is absolutely heartbreaking and truly unacceptable,
and it shows the depth of the work that we must continue to
champion. Work like the President's National Strategy to
Counter Antisemitism and providing the support necessary to the
Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education.
Increasing funding would truly ensure that the resources
necessary are available, so that we can look back a year from
now and hopefully be able to say that we did not have the
highest number of antisemitic incidents on record. That is
unfortunately not something that I have been able to do or see
during my 5 years here serving on this Committee.
My community in metropolitan Atlanta, home to the largest
Jewish community in the Deep South, is no stranger to any of
these kinds of incidents. We see more hatred in our discourse
and more violence in our communities than we have ever seen
before.
Time and time again, antisemitic vandalism and the white
supremacist symbols appear in our neighborhoods, in the
districts that I represent, and we have stood together in
condemning them. Now I understand how important it is for all
in our community to support one another, regardless of our
faith, regardless of our ethnicity.
Many people do not know that a large number of the
supporters of the NAACP were Jewish, or of community's
collective history and common interest. My father was branch
president of the Illinois NAACP during the civil rights
movements, and I distinctly remember when our local Jewish
community stood up to support us, as we were on the front lines
fighting for civil and human rights.
One community that was one of the first to voice support
for those of us that were fighting on the front lines, and that
had a very serious impact on me. A Jewish professor at Columbia
served as NAACP chair in the early 1900's, and I am proud to
carry on our long partnership in the fight against racism,
hatred and antisemitism.
To know that your community stands with you in your
greatest hour of need, it means absolutely everything. Mr.
Schizer, do you know if Columbia's currently taking any steps
to renew their strong legacy of interracial and interreligious
connections on campus?
Dr. Schizer. I will say this. I am moved by what you said,
and I completely agree with it. Issues like racism and
antisemitism are not partisan issues; they are American issues,
and in that spirit, I know President Shafik has been
emphasizing how important it is for us all to come together and
we may not agree. I mean we absolutely should not agree on
everything.
We need to treat each other with respect, and I think her
leadership on that issue has been extremely important.
Ms. McBath. Well, thank you for that. Can you then please
just talk a little bit about their importance and what the
building those connections and relationships actually looks
like on campus?
Dr. Shafik. Congresswoman, I completely agree with you, and
I think one of the things I have said over and over is that
antisemitism is not a problem for Jewish people to solve. It is
actually a problem for all of us, and you I think said it much
better than I have ever said it.
We are looking at how to invest more in interfaith dialog
at Columbia. We have a group. I have met with them, but I think
at this particular moment it merits further support in order to
rebuild our community.
Ms. McBath. I thank you so much. I do appreciate all the
efforts that I believe everyone in this room really is making.
I do not--I truly believe in humanity. I truly believe in our
ability to put our differences aside for the common good, and I
hope that everyone in this room would find at a time such as
now to do so, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Ms. McBath. Mr. Bean, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bean. Thank you. Thank you very much Madam Chair and
good afternoon. Columbia beats Harvard and UPenn. You all have
done something that they were not able to do. You have been
able to condemn antisemitism without using the phrase ``it
depends on the context.''
The problem is, action on campus does not match your
rhetoric today, and you are saying the right things. You are
saying we are not going to tolerate it, but we see the videos.
We see what is happening on social media, and just this morning
all of these students, your students, your students, their
message is quite different.
Their message is one of fear. How about that? They cannot
walk across campus without getting the F word yelled at them,
``F Jews,'' Intifada, all kinds of things. My hearts aches for
them. It should be hard academically at Columbia, but it should
not be hard to walk across campus and it is.
Words do not match your actions. You can have 200 meetings.
You can put people on double secret probation as you have. You
can write very strongly worded letters, do not ever do it
again. That is not solving the problems.
Look at the fear in their eyes right now. One of them said
this morning in a press conference that we got to spend some
time with that security on campus, are you ready for this,
security on campus told them ``remove anything that identifies
you as Jewish when things get hot.'' That is the way to stay
safe on Columbia's campus, do not look Jewish and you will be
safe. Is that your policy, Madam President, to stay safe, just
do not look Jewish?
Dr. Shafik. Not at all, and I think----
Mr. Bean. Have you met with them? I know you have met with
them. I know you met with them two hundred times, but why is
their message different from yours? Why are they saying it
happens all the time every week going to class? Are you aware
of that? It is a yes or no question. Are you aware that there
is a problem on campus?
You are aware? Yes is the right answer, you are aware. As
president of the board Ms. Shipman, thank you for being here.
Are you aware though that this once prestigious university's
reputation is just going down the toilet, because of all of the
antisemitism that is flourishing on campus. Are you aware?
Ms. Shipman. I am aware of how serious this moment is. I
appreciate your urgency. We are not done, I recognize----
Mr. Bean. Have we quadrupled security on campus? Have we
expelled students? How many students have we expelled?
Dr. Shafik. We have massively increased our security.
Mr. Bean. Have we expelled anybody? There are so many hate
groups on campus. I just, I want you all to know, there is got
to be--this is America. It is 2024 and you should not fear
going to the library just because of your faith. Madam Chair, I
yield the rest of my time to the gentlelady from New York, Ms.
Stefanik.
Ms. Stefanik. Dr. Shafik, you answered one of the questions
of our colleagues across the aisle. You said there has been no
anti-Jewish protests. Do the other individuals on the panel
agree with that? Let us start with you, Professor Schizer?
Dr. Schizer. I think there have been antisemitic protests,
so I would say yes.
Ms. Stefanik. You disagree. There have been anti-Jewish
protests.
Ms. Shipman.
Ms. Shipman. I know there have been a number of incidents,
especially one at our law school recently that the students
were trying to call a protest, but it was an event to harass
admitted students who were Jewish, and it is outrageous.
Ms. Stefanik. That is anti-Jewish. The answer would be yes?
Ms. Shipman. Yes.
Ms. Stefanik. Mr. Greenwald.
Mr. Greenwald. There have been antisemitic events on
campus, which I interpret as anti-Jewish.
Ms. Stefanik. Dr. Shafik, you realize that at some of these
events, the slurs and the chants have been ``F the Jews, death
to Jews, F Israel, No safe place, death to the Zionist State,
Jews out.'' You do not think those are anti-Jewish?
Dr. Shafik. Completely anti-Jewish, completely
unacceptable, horrible.
Ms. Stefanik. You change your testimony on that issue as
well? There have been anti-Jewish protests.
Dr. Shafik. I did not get to finish my sentence. What I was
going to say is there were protests that were called that
were----
Ms. Stefanik. That is not what you were asked. You were
asked were there any anti-Jewish protests, and you said no.
Dr. Shafik. The protest was not labeled as an anti-Jewish
protest----
Ms. Stefanik. I am not asking what it was labeled.
Dr. Shafik [continuing]. It was labeled as an anti-Israeli
government policy.
Ms. Stefanik. The question was what it was labeled.
Dr. Shafik. Antisemitic incidents have happened, or
antisemitic things were said.
Ms. Stefanik. It is anti-Jewish protest. You agree with
that? You change your testimony?
Dr. Shafik. Congresswoman, anti-Jewish things were said at
protests, yes.
Ms. Stefanik. Thank you for changing your testimony.
Another instance when you changed your testimony is you stated
that Professor Massad was no longer chair. Then you stated he
is under investigation. He is still chair on the website. Has
he been terminated as chair?
Dr. Shafik. Congresswoman, I want to confirm the facts
before getting back to you.
Ms. Stefanik. I know you confirmed that he was under
investigation.
Dr. Shafik. Yes, I can confirm that.
Ms. Stefanik. Did you confirm he was still the chair?
Dr. Shafik. I need, I need to confirm that.
Ms. Stefanik. Well, let me ask you this. Will you make the
commitment to remove him as chair?
Dr. Shafik. I think that would be, I think I would, yes.
Let me come back with yes. I think I just want to confirm his
current status before I----
Ms. Stefanik. We will take that as a yes, that you will
confirm that he will no longer be chair.
Chairwoman Foxx. Mr. Bean's time has expired. Mr. Scott,
you are recognized for 5 minutes. I am sorry, you want to be
last, Ms. Chavez-DeRemer? You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank
the witnesses for being here today. The widespread antisemitism
we are seeing on college campuses is one of the most important
issues in higher education.
Since the horrific terror attacks of October 7th, Jewish
students have found themselves constantly under attack for
simply being Jewish. Dr. Shafik, Columbia has been one of the
worst offenders. I place that responsibility of campus safety
right at the feet of university presidents, and in this case,
it is you.
Jewish students fear for their lives at your university.
They have been harassed, threatened and assaulted by fellow
classmates. It is no wonder students think this is okay. They
are learning in class how to target Jews.
At our hearing with the presidents of MIT, Harvard and
UPenn, I highlighted the astonishingly low number of courses
being offered on Jewish history. Dr. Shafik, I also looked into
your university's course offerings for this semester.
You only have three classes that teach the history of
Israel. Two of them are taught by Israelis and Jews, but those
two classes combined only have 30 seats. The third class can
have up to 60 students, and that class of course is taught by
Joseph Massad, someone this Committee is all too familiar with.
Joseph Massad has been surrounded by controversy for his
antisemitic rhetoric since the early 2000's. He praised the
brutal attack, as we have heard today of Hamas on October 7th
as awesome, astonishing and astounding. He called the videos
that showed murder and rape of Israeli women ``stunning.''
Dr. Shafik, I have been to the towns attacked by Hamas. Let
me tell you, there is nothing awesome or astounding about the
rape and murder of thousands of innocent civilians. Dr. Shafik,
Joseph Massad has been a problem for more than 20 years. Why
have you not shown that antisemitism is not tolerated at your
university by firing him?
I know you have commented on that already today. Does
Columbia support this type of speech?
Dr. Shafik. No, and as I said, he is under investigation. I
also, if I may, speak to your question about our course
offerings. Before this hearing, the two directors of our
Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies came to see me, and
they said to me make sure the Committee knows that Columbia is
not a hotbed of antisemitism, but that we are a pioneer in
Jewish studies.
Ms. Chavez-DeRemer. Two classes is not going to
prolifically tell that to the world, and that is the story that
needs to be told. Let me--excuse me. Dr. Massad is a tenured
professor, but that does not mean he cannot be fired; correct?
Can he be fired?
Dr. Shafik. There are some very complex issues around
tenure we are looking at----
Ms. Chavez-DeRemer. At Columbia University, ``An
appointment with tenure may be terminated for cause, only when
a faculty member is found to be professionally unfit, as
demonstrated, for example, by gross inefficiency, habitual and
intentional neglect of duty, other serious breaches of academic
conduct or serious personal misconduct.''
Dr. Shafik, you told Congressman Walberg earlier today that
if given the opportunity to grant Dr. Massad a tenured position
today, you would not. In your opinion, has his antisemitism
conduct risen to be professionally unfit or a serious breach of
academic conduct or serious professional misconduct?
Dr. Shafik. As I said, he is being investigated.
Ms. Chavez-DeRemer. He can be fired, according to this
quote.
Dr. Shafik. According to our rules, there are certain
conditions under which tenured faculty----
Ms. Chavez-DeRemer. Okay, moving on. As I said back in
December, the most powerful mover of campus culture is
education itself, and you said that today. We can stop this if
we educate the future about Israel, and again those classes do
not prove that you are taking action with what you said.
Columbia has shown through its choices on faculty and
course offerings that you do not care about antisemitism, that
you will turn a blind eye to the attacks on the most persecuted
people of the last 5,000 years.
That is why you let Joseph Massad teach at a class bigger
than all the other Israeli history classes combined. That is
why you continue to allow your Jewish students to be harassed,
threatened and assaulted on your campus. Dr. Shafik, you said
earlier today that the best way to combat antisemitism is
through that education.
I am going to say it once again. Since there are only three
undergrad courses Columbia offers on Jewish and Israeli
history, will you commit to pushing your deans to add more
courses on Jewish history, and remove those who teach and
praise antisemitic violence like Joseph Massad?
Dr. Shafik. Our Institute for Israeli and Jewish Studies
offers 21 courses. We have a collaborative arrangement with the
Jewish Theological Seminary, and many of the students who are
doing the joint degree with the Jewish Theological Seminary are
here.
Ms. Chavez-DeRemer. It is time your Jewish students finally
see that you actually care about their safety. Teach these
classes and fire the racists. It is a pretty low bar. We will
be watching to see if you do that, and Madam Chair, I yield
back my time.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. Mr. Williams, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Williams. Thank you, Madam Chairman. You know, I am
really puzzled about how a university with such a prestigious
reputation, such immense resources and such a storied history
arrived at such a dissolute and depraved place. It is very
stunning.
Just to address these questions to the board members, in
the last 20 years, have there been Columbia professors or
students who have been forced to retire or leave the university
because of denouncements by fellow staff members or accusations
by students, pressures from outside groups?
Mr. Greenwald. I have been on the board, this is my sixth
year on the board, but I do not recall actions of that nature
happening.
Mr. Williams. Ms. Shipman
Ms. Shipman. Yes. I have been on the board 10 years, and
neither do I.
Mr. Williams. Professor Serbin, you do not recall his
leaving? He believes that the university was Communist, was his
words? You do not recall that?
[No response.]
Mr. Williams. Professor Schizer, you have been there some
years. Are you aware publicly or privately that any of your
colleagues have left the university, either because they
believe their beliefs are not welcome or because they feel like
they have no upward mobility because of their beliefs?
Dr. Schizer. I am not remembering a case like that, sir.
Mr. Williams. No one has come to you privately and said
hey, Columbia is not the place for me. This is hostile because
of, I am a conservative or I am Jewish, or I hold any beliefs
that seem to be contrary to the university?
Dr. Schizer. Look, I am a conservative at Columbia Law
School. I was dean for 10 years. The place has been good to me.
Mr. Williams. Are there a lot--are there a lot of people
like you? Are you afraid to speak out?
Dr. Schizer. I do want to say that I am not the norm, and I
would love more conservatives.
Mr. Williams. How much investment, again to the board
members, how much investment has Columbia received by foreign
governments, their donors or significant donations from foreign
individuals from countries like China, Qatar, Saudi Arabia?
I know that the Committee's asked for that information. Do
you have that number for us today?
Mr. Greenwald. I do not have that number at hand.
Mr. Williams. Are you aware of significant donations from
any of those locations to the university in your tenure of 6
years?
Mr. Greenwald. I am aware that we received funds from at
least some of those countries.
Mr. Williams. Which ones specifically?
Mr. Greenwald. I do not remember all the ones you
mentioned. Did you mention China sir?
Mr. Williams. I did.
Mr. Greenwald. Okay. China sends many students to Columbia
University, and my understanding is the State pays their
tuition.
Mr. Williams. President Shafik, are faculty and staff
required to sign DEI statements to be employed or to continue
their employment at Columbia?
Ms. Shafik. No.
Mr. Williams. They are not required to provide DEI
statements? I am pretty sure that is part of your employment
process, is that not right?
Ms. Shafik. I think--I think some departments ask faculty
to talk about what they bring that is different to that
department or to that role, and that is an optional thing that
they can add to an employment----
Mr. Williams. It is optional, and if you refuse to, then it
has no bearing on your hiring at the school. Is that really
what you are saying?
Dr. Shafik. Frankly, I think it depends on the needs of
that particular department. You know, if the Math Department or
the Biology Department or the Neuroscience Department has
issues around, they're missing certain perspectives on their
faculty, they might pay more attention to it. Others might not.
I think it is very much dependent on----
Mr. Williams. The DEI policy at Columbia does not require
statements from faculty, administrators as part of their H.R.
process? That is what you are saying?
Dr. Shafik. We do not have a central DEI office at
Columbia. We have schools and faculties who think about what
are the different perspectives that they've got on their
faculty, and then they make choices about what is missing in
terms of perspectives, backgrounds, skills that are needed for
the faculty, and that they have people who are working on those
issues at the school and departmental level.
Mr. Williams. I think, personally I think that you are in
deep denial about the culture at Columbia, in terms of the
actual openness to views that differ from the culture of the
school, where your money comes from, the disruption of classes,
and the DEI statements.
I just want to enter into the record, Madam Chairwoman, a
webpage from the U.S. Holocaust Museum website that describes
the Nazi takeover of German universities in the 1930's, and
frankly I see the parallels as striking. It is entitled
``German Universities in the Nazi Regime,'' something like
that.
It really talks about, that there were denouncements of
professors for views that were not consistent. It talks about
the influence of outside groups, particularly money, where
statements of loyalty were required in order to continue at the
university, and that the teaching quality dropped significantly
because politics and adherence to politics triumphed over
adherence to academic excellence.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Williams. Without
objection, what you are requesting will be placed in the
record.
[The information of Mr. Williams follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Williams. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx. Mr. Moran, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. There are times in
my district when constituents asked me frequently whether
Committee hearings have real, tangible purpose, and are
effective in creating change.
In answer to that question, I need only point to the series
of Committee hearings that the House Committee on Education and
the Workforce has held over the past 6 months on antisemitism
in higher education, to resoundingly answer yes. These hearings
do make a difference and do create change.
I think it is clear today that this panel has learned at
least some of the lessons from the magnificent failures of
Harvard, MIT and UPenn when they appeared here several months
back. What is my question still remaining is whether or not it
is just talk, or whether or not real action will follow to
change what has occurred on the campus of Columbia University.
I had a whole series of questions prepared on a number of
different circumstances and people and what they said and what
their responses were, but my colleagues before me have actually
covered most of that. Here is what I really want to talk about
today, because I think that there is a foundational issue
behind all of this.
It is the foundational issue about truth. I think one of
the reasons why it has been difficult for university presidents
to sit before us and to actually answer questions affirmatively
is because they fear declaring what they know to be truth. They
are fearing the pushback.
I happen to believe that there are absolute truths in this
world, truths that are objective and not subjective, truths
that should stand even when it is unpopular or when it is hard.
I want to ask each one of you on the panel, do you agree with
that statement?
Dr. Shafik.
Dr. Shafik. Congressman Moran, I can assure you I am not
afraid of telling the truth, and I am not afraid of doing
things that might be unpopular.
Mr. Moran. No, that was not my question. Do you believe
that there are absolute truths in this world that are
objectively true?
Dr. Shafik. Yes.
Dr. Schizer. Absolutely.
Mr. Moran. Ms. Shipman.
Ms. Shipman. Yes, I agree.
Mr. Moran. Good. Mr. Greenwald.
Mr. Greenwald. Yes.
Mr. Moran. Good. I think--I happen to think that one of
these absolute truths is that each person in this world was
created with equal and eternal value. Do you agree with that
Dr. Shafik?
Dr. Shafik. I do, I do.
Mr. Moran. Professor.
Dr. Schizer. Absolutely, definitely.
Ms. Shipman. Certainly.
Mr. Greenwald. Yes.
Mr. Moran. These are what are called softball questions,
and what I can tell you is I am afraid that actually some of
the people that you employ and some of your colleagues at other
institutions actually do not believe that.
The greater question is are you going to enforce that? Are
you going to apply those principles? Are you going to apply
that truth? I want to commend Mr. Greenwald for some of the
very direct answers that you have given today, because quite
honestly, we have not heard direct answers from a few of you
today.
You have given some good answers today, some things that we
need to hear. We need to see action, not just hearing it here
today, because there is a lot of students here today that
needed your action in the last 6 months, and you have not given
the action they need to push back against the untruth that is
in this world, that is prevalent on your campus.
There is a major difference between knowledge of truth,
understanding of the basis of that truth, and wisdom and
courage in the application of that truth, and what we need is
the wisdom and courage from you, Dr. Shafik, to apply the
principles that you purport to stand for and to apply the truth
that you just evidenced here today, and make sure that your
actions follow your words today.
Only time will tell whether your words here today are
hollow or whether your actions are truly to follow. I yield to
the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Stefanik, for the balance of
my time.
Ms. Stefanik. Ms. Shipman, was there an effort to get other
trustees to sign a letter supporting President Shafik?
Ms. Shipman. No.
Ms. Stefanik. There was not.
Ms. Shipman. No.
Ms. Stefanik. Will you comply with all documents related to
email correspondence regarding any potential letter?
Ms. Shipman. We have----
Ms. Stefanik. Board members have come forward anonymously
to this Committee raising the issue of a letter that was
circulated, that members of the board did not sign on in
support. Are you testifying today under oath that you have no
knowledge of any draft letter in support of Dr. Shafik?
Ms. Shipman. No knowledge whatsoever, and my understanding
is we are fully complying and ready to give you whatever you
need.
Ms. Stefanik. Mr. Greenwald, are you aware of any letter
that was circulated?
Mr. Greenwald. No, that is surprising to me.
Ms. Stefanik. Professor David, are you aware?
Dr. Schizer. Not at all.
Ms. Stefanik. My final question is there has been a lot of
discussion on Columbia's putting out a statement against
calling for the genocide of Jews. That statement was put out
after the catastrophically, morally repugnant answers by your
colleagues from MIT, Penn and Harvard; correct? That was when
you put out that statement, after that hearing?
Dr. Shafik. Congresswoman, you shed light on an important
issue.
Ms. Stefanik. I am just asking when you put it out. It was
after that hearing?
Dr. Shafik. It was definitely after it because frankly it
seemed obvious.
Ms. Stefanik. You are aware that Congress voted 377 to 44
condemning antisemitism. That is a strong bipartisan vote.
Would you support that vote condemning antisemitism?
Dr. Shafik. Yes.
Ms. Stefanik. You are aware that in that bill that got 377
members out of 435 Members of Congress condemn ``From the River
to the Sea'' as antisemitic?
Dr. Shafik. Yes, I am aware of that.
Ms. Stefanik. You do not believe ``from the river to the
sea'' is antisemitic?
Dr. Shafik. We have already issued a statement to our
community saying that language is hurtful, and we would prefer
not to hear it on our campus.
Ms. Stefanik. You would prefer not to hear it, or is there
disciplinary action taken against students of those antisemitic
statements?
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Ms. Stefanik.
Ms. Stefanik. I want an answer to that question.
Dr. Shafik. Sorry, sorry. I am sorry. Can you repeat the
question?
Ms. Stefanik. Has there been disciplinary action taken
against students who have chanted ``From the river to the
sea,'' which you have testified is antisemitic and which
Congress has voted that it is antisemitic?
Dr. Shafik. We have some disciplinary cases ongoing around
that language. We have specified that those kinds of chants
should be restricted in terms of where they happen.
Chairwoman Foxx. We need to wrap it up, Dr. Shafik.
Dr. Shafik. We are looking at it. We are looking at it.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you.
Dr. Shafik. Sorry about that.
Chairwoman Foxx. The Ranking Member is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Madam Chair. Professor Schizer, you
indicated the tension between protesting the war and
antisemitism. How do you prevent gatherings from going from one
to the other?
Dr. Schizer. I think sir there are two things that we need
to do. One is to be very clear, and the president has been, and
the trustees have been, that free and open exchange is
critical. The second is to make very clear, and I believe we
have, that discrimination, harassment and hate are
unacceptable.
It is entirely appropriate for people to take a view about
the war in Gaza. People can oppose it; people can support it.
What you cannot do----
Mr. Scott. When you are trying to enforce student behavior
on this, how would you--how would it be helpful if language in
a bill that this Committee reported on a party line vote
requiring a--saying a public institution may not prohibit a
person, a person not a student, a person from freely engaging
in non-commercial expressive activity in generally accessible
areas on an institution's campus, if the person's conduct is
lawful?
How would you be able to deal with that? Would that be
helpful in trying to keep antisemitism off campus?
Dr. Schizer. I would need to study that language sir, but I
will say that having a place where speech is robust and
permitted is very appropriate and necessary----
Mr. Scott. This is the whole, this is the whole campus.
Dr. Schizer. I would not support speech anywhere at any
time. I think we need classes to take place. We do not want
them to be disrupted. We need protest and we need speech just
to be in the right place.
Mr. Scott. Ms. Shipman, you were asked a question about
what it says about the situation when this is the fourth
hearing we would have to have on antisemitism. What does it say
when there have been no hearings on racism, homophobia,
Islamophobia or how you could make campuses safe for
transgender students?
Ms. Shipman. What is my thought about that?
Mr. Scott. Do you think we should have had some hearings?
Are those not problems?
Ms. Shipman. Look, we have a specific problem right now on
our campus, so I can speak from what I know, and that is
rampant antisemitism.
This hearing is hard and helpful for us at this moment. I
certainly think, because I have heard from a lot of students on
our campus and my time on the board, we would benefit from
broader hearings about hate in general.
As I have said, I think we have a broader societal problem
that is reflected in a really divisive way on college campuses.
Mr. Scott. Antisemitism is the only one we ought to be
addressing, not racism, homophobia?
Ms. Shipman. We certainly address all of it. We have no
tolerance for any of that on our campus, but right now-----
Mr. Scott. Islamophobia? How trans students--we have had
hearings. During these hearings, we have had some members
disparage trans students in the middle of the hearing on
antisemitism. Should not we be having hearings making sure all
students can be safe?
Ms. Shipman. I understand that sentiment, Congressman and I
have spent a significant amount of time with some of our Muslim
students from the region, and their stories are also
heartbreaking. I do not like that any student on our campus
does not feel safe.
I think what we see most routinely right now is political
speech crossing the line into antisemitism, and we have, go to
figure that out.
Mr. Scott. We do not address the fact that black students
may not feel safe? Gay students? Muslim students? Let me ask
another question, Ms. Shafik. If someone says something that is
antisemitic, what should the sanction be?
Dr. Shafik. It depends on what they say, who they say it
to, what context it is in. In any situation, we would pursue
disciplinary action----
Mr. Scott. Should they always be expelled?
Dr. Shafik. No. I mean I think, you know, expulsion is a
very extreme act but we, you know, we are an educational
institution. We have got to start by educating our students to
not say certain things and change the culture, so that nobody
is discriminated or harassed at all. That should be our
objective.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. You would try to fit the sanction
with the seriousness of the crime----
Dr. Shafik. Absolutely.
Mr. Scott [continuing]. The context, and hopefully use it
as an educational opportunity?
Dr. Shafik. Agreed.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, thank you.
Chairwoman Foxx. I now recognize the Ranking Member for a
closing statement.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Madam Chair. First, I would like to
ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the article
``Columbia's Own Middle East War'' from January 19th, 2005,
that provides additional nuance on the issue of professors at
Columbia.
Unanimous consent to enter into the record a report from
the University of Chicago's Project on Security and Threats,
analyzing the fear of both Jewish and Muslim students feel on
campus, and how that fear often results from miscommunication.
Another, I would like to enter into the record a letter
from Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on
Education to Chairwoman Foxx and myself, outlining the concerns
he and the organization have with the H.R. 7683, the bill that
I referenced, including the following quote:
``Given the Committee's recent focus on concerns regarding
antisemitism and the need for campuses to increase their
efforts to provide safe environments free from discrimination
for all students, we are puzzled by the bill's inclusion of a
provision that would tie the hands of campus administrators to
address these issues and potentially make campuses less safe.''
Chairwoman Foxx. Without objection.
[The information of Mr. Scott follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Scott. Madam Chair, we all agree that Jewish students
should be entitled to a safe learning experience at all
colleges. In fact, all students ought to be entitled to the
same. This is the fourth hearing we've had on antisemitism.
None on racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, transgender.
In fact, the Office of Civil Rights budget has been cut by
the Republican budget and we have reported a bill that would
actually create more problems. I think the Office of Civil
Rights has indicated that they get a lot more complaints from
racism, homophobia, Islamophobia and trans students, and those
need to also be addressed.
I hope the Committee would somehow promote the safety of
all students, not just one group, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Scott. We are deeply
disturbed by what we are seeing at Columbia and by many of the
things we have heard in today's hearing. It is important to set
the record straight on a few things.
President Shafik testified there have been 15 suspensions
related to antisemitic incidents. That is misleading. In fact,
between October 7 and March 23, after months of antisemitic
incidents, only three students were given interim suspensions
for antisemitic conduct.
All three were lifted or dropped to probation, including a
student who repeatedly harassed students, screaming ``F the
Jews.'' Of the ten suspensions that came in response to the
Resistance 101, five were lifted because Columbia determined
they were not involved.
The only two Columbia students who remain suspended for
incidents related to October 7th that took place before we
called Dr. Shafik to testify are the two Jewish students
suspended for spraying the odorous substance Representative
Omar referred to.
Dr. Shafik's testimony was misleading there too. Documents
Columbia produced to the Committee show that the substance
sprayed was a non-toxic gag spray. While that was an
inappropriate action, for months Jewish students have been
vilified with false accusations of a ``chemical attack,'' and
Columbia failed to correct the record.
Radical antisemitic faculty remain a huge problem
throughout Columbia at the Middle Eastern Studies Department,
School of Social Work, School of Public Health, Law School, and
many others. Multiple Columbia Departments have been into
receivership in the past 20 years.
If Columbia takes this seriously, it is a remedy worth
pursuing. While some changes have begun on campus, there is
still a significant amount of work to be done as we have heard
today. We will be looking for answers to the questions that
have been raised today in a very timely fashion, and we are
prepared to bring you back if we do not see more tangible
progress.
I thank our witnesses again for being here today. I thank
all the members who have attended to help us gather the
information we have gathered. Without objection, there being no
further business, the Committee stands adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Whereupon, at 1:42 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[all]