With so much else going on in the world and throughout the United States—economic turbulence and holidays, for example (chag pesach sameach to those celebrating)—many have been consumed with things other than Columbia, even those of us at the university.
Still, recent notable developments include a federal ruling on the case of Mahmoud Khalil as well as the arrest of a Columbia student, Mohsen Mahdawi. Moreover, with what now seems like an official battle between Harvard University and the United States government underway, tensions and concerns are growing yet again on campus.
Within the same 24-hour period that Harvard declared it would not comply with the government’s demands—which differed significantly from those addressed to Columbia—the government announced it would freeze $2.2 billion in federal funding to the institution. This all follows the government’s announcement last month that it had begun reviewing $9 billion in federal funding to Harvard.
The disturbance this combination of events has caused on Columbia’s campus prompted Acting President Claire Shipman—whom I had the pleasure of hearing from in a student committee meeting last week—to address the community. President Shipman’s letter to Columbians includes more than a few key points.
First and foremost, the letter addresses the real concern over when and whether the university will regain federal research funding. Undoubtedly this has been a serious blow to the institution, particularly because the departments suffering most from these measures are not those most culpable in the current case of antisemitism on campus; the parts of the institution conducting cancer research, for example, have paid the price—literally—for the antisemitism seen and promulgated most notably within the university’s humanities departments.
Still, the letter affirms that the university’s administration remains staunch in its belief that it is in “good faith discussions” with the federal government, which are ongoing. President Shipman also acknowledged that a portion of the government’s demands are reasonable. Indeed, “some of the government’s requests have aligned with policies and practices that we believe are important to advancing our mission,” the president writes. Other demands, however, are considered “overly prescriptive requests about our governance, how we conduct our presidential search process, and how specifically to address viewpoint diversity issues,” that are “not subject to negotiation.”
Following in Harvard's footsteps
I was pleased to read President Shipman’s explicit mention and review of the recent news about Harvard. She divulged that she read Harvard’s refusal letter “with great interest” but remains committed to “a continued public conversation about the value and principles of higher education” at this time. While some may assume this stance is the result of fear, given the $2.2 billion rescission following Harvard’s refusal to cooperate with the government, I do not share this belief. Although my position is based on a relatively premature impression, President Shipman has carried herself and the university with authenticity and grace. I have little to no doubt that President Shipman wants the best for this university and will do what she can to ensure the best is achieved.
Right now, President Shipman clearly believes that following Harvard’s approach to the current dispute between higher education institutions and the federal government is not the most constructive path. I commend this position not just because I share it, but because it demonstrates an ability to lead. President Shipman is comfortable holding a definitive position—publicly. While this may seem like a small thing, a strong ability to lead—especially conveyed in the form of taking a firm position on a particular issue—has been a quality difficult to find amongst authority figures at Columbia over the past year and a half.
The president’s letter concludes with an address to Columbia’s international students. Specifically, she announced “a new university fund… to assist students who need help managing unanticipated expenses and other challenges right now.” This is in addition to the “recently announced commitment of additional resources to our International Students and Scholars Office (ISSO) to expand their ability to help our international students… including a significant expansion of hours and staff resources.”
As the letter was just released this past Monday, it is unclear how Columbians will respond. Many students- the more vocal ones, at least—have consistently expressed disappointment, frustration, and even anger with the administration over their refusal to issue a statement in support of Mahmoud Khalil. Especially now with the arrest of Mohsen Mahdawi—which the letter did not explicitly mention—this portion of students seems likely to retain these feelings. I, however, have been encouraged by the administration’s decision to support international students without declaring unique support for Mahmoud Khalil (or Mahdawi, for that matter).
Like President Shipman’s acknowledgement that some federal demands are just, this attitude suggests there remains a level of reason within the university administration that many of us have feared no longer exists. As we know, Khalil is a non-US citizen who has, amongst other things, led (and negotiated on behalf of) a movement openly and proudly dedicated to the destruction of the United States—the very country he aspires to join and that has graciously hosted him for a number of years. Mahdawi—a 30-something-year-old undergraduate who co-founded Columbia’s “Palestinian Student Union” with Khalil—has a similar if not identical case.
For these reasons, neither student—or, former student in Khalil’s case—should be defended by the university. In fact, it would be bizarre for the university to support these students—and others like them—given that the students themselves and the movement they have led apparently do not support Columbia. Not only has their movement consistently disparaged the university (both verbally and through physical destruction of property), but they have called for the “total eradication of Western civilization,” which Columbia has been designed to uphold.
Moreover, results of the legitimate legal debate over whether or not to deport Khalil have begun to emerge: A federal, immigration judge ruled on April 11 that the government can lawfully deport Mahmoud Khalil. While “nothing is going to happen quickly,” given that Khalil will appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals in the next few weeks, according to Marc Van Der Hout (one of Khalil’s attorneys), the decision shows that this is not an axiomatic case.
To offer unwavering support, then, would be folly in more ways than one. So far, Acting President Shipman has governed this issue with clarity.
It is important to note, though, that the student body is generally confused about what or how to think of the deportation issue(s).
A significant portion appears disturbed by these arrests, while another seems to commend them; most students seem unsure of what to think at all. There is no question for any of us, though, that the present time at Columbia is a precarious one.
Personally, I am inclined and content to turn to our acting president for solace—and the final words of her recent email address in particular: “We are navigating a turbulent time for higher education. The challenges ahead of us are formidable,” she wrote to the Columbia community earlier this week. “Knowing Columbia as I do, and as you do,” she added, however, “I am confident that we will get through this to serve our students, faculty, staff, and society for centuries to come.”
I believe her.