Columbia University announced on Tuesday that it will make additional reforms to combat antisemitism on campus, including by formally adopting a contentious definition of antisemitism that classifies some criticisms of the state of Israel as antisemitic.
The changes, some of which have been long sought by pro-Israel Jewish organizations, come ahead of a possible deal with the Trump administration to restore more than $400 million in research funding that was frozen as a result of allegations that Columbia was not doing enough to curb antisemitism on campus.
That agreement, which could come as early as this week, is likely to require Columbia to pay a fine of hundreds of millions of dollars to settle antisemitism claims. It is likely to also require further reforms in exchange for reopening the federal funding spigot, two people with knowledge of the matter told The New York Times last week.
The latest efforts to fight antisemitism were disclosed in a letter to the Columbia community from Claire Shipman, the acting president.
“In my view, any government agreement we reach is only a starting point for change,” she wrote. “Committing to reform on our own is a more powerful path. It will better enable us to recognize our shortcomings and create lasting change.”
Ms. Shipman announced that the changes would include formally incorporating the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism into the work of a recently established office at Columbia that considers complaints of discrimination and discriminatory harassment.
That definition, initially published by a European Union agency in 2005, has been used by the U.S. State Department since 2010 and by the U.S. Department of Education since at least 2019, as well as by more than 1,000 other governments, universities and nonprofit organizations, according to the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish advocacy group that backs its widespread adoption.
But it has been criticized, particularly by left-leaning institutions, because it classifies some forms of anti-Zionism as antisemitic, such as denying the Jewish people’s right to self-determination or claiming that the existence of Israel is a racist endeavor. That leaves open the possibility that some pro-Palestinian voices on campus could be accused of harassment, and punished, for expressing their political views.
Columbia’s Office of Institutional Equity, which was created last summer, has already investigated allegations of harassment that involved the criticism of Israel, including accusations against a student over an opinion essay in the student newspaper that called for divestment from Israel and accused the country of committing genocide.
Following a similar pledge recently made by Barnard, Columbia’s affiliated women’s college, Ms. Shipman announced that the university would not recognize or meet with the group that organized the main pro-Palestinian protest encampment on its campus last year, Columbia University Apartheid Divest, or any of its affiliated organizations. Columbia administrators negotiated with the organization during the encampment in April 2024 but failed to reach an agreement.
In addition, Columbia will appoint two new coordinators to oversee investigations into claims of discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Those coordinators will produce a publicly available report each year about discrimination investigations and their results.
The university will also institute new educational programs about antisemitism for students and faculty and staff members, including those developed by national organizations such as Project Shema, a training and support organization, and the Anti-Defamation League. And it will reaffirm that it has zero tolerance for discrimination and harassment based on protected traits, including Jewish and Israeli identity.
For Elisha Baker, a rising senior at Columbia and leader of Aryeh, a pro-Israel student group, the changes do not go far enough. While he called the reforms “nice, symbolic gestures,” he said Columbia needed deep institutional reform to “fix a campus culture which has rewarded antisemitism, anti-Westernism and disruption.”
Joseph Howley, a professor of classics and supporter of the pro-Palestinian movement on campus, was critical for different reasons. The definition of antisemitism being adopted by the university, he said, “is not informed by scholarly expertise or even best practice. So it’s not the best framework for confronting hate speech, and it’s not going to solve real problems of discrimination or harassment.”
And barring administrators from speaking to a protesting student group, he said, would only lead situations to escalate, feeding into the goals of extremists who want confrontation.
Many faculty members and students on campus have pushed back against the assertion that antisemitism is widespread at Columbia. But Ms. Shipman said she felt that it was a serious concern, and that more needed to be done to make sure Jewish and Israeli students felt comfortable and safe on campus.
“In a recent discussion, a faculty member and I agreed that antisemitism at this institution has existed, perhaps less overtly, for a long while, and the work of dismantling it, especially through education and understanding, will take time,” she wrote. “But I’m hopeful that in doing this work, as we consider and even debate it, we will start to promote healing and to chart our path forward.”
Brian Cohen, the executive director of Hillel at Columbia, a Jewish campus organization, welcomed Ms. Shipman’s announcement and her “unequivocal recognition that there is an antisemitism problem on campus.”
“I hope this announcement marks the beginning of meaningful and sustained change,” he said.
Sharon Otterman is a Times reporter covering higher education, public health and other issues facing New York City.
The post Columbia Expands Efforts to Fight Antisemitism as Trump Deal Seems Near appeared first on New York Times.
