Columbia president resigns: Can this conflict-ridden school shape up on free speech?

As students, faculty, and administrators gear up to return to campus, one Ivy League college president is heading in a very different direction — away from the ivory tower.

In an August 14 letter to the campus community, Columbia University President Minouche Shafik announced her resignation after serving in the role for just over 13 months. She referred to “a period of turmoil where it has been difficult to overcome divergent views across our community” and “tension, division, and politicization” that has “disrupted our campus over the last year.”

Though her letter doesn’t specifically mention the protests, encampments, or arrests that took Columbia by storm last spring — or December’s congressional hearing on anti-Semitism, which led to the resignation of two other high-profile college presidents, or April’s congressional hearing in which Shafik herself fielded questions on the same topic —  it’s easy to read between the lines. Columbia was the nexus of student opposition to Israel’s military action in Gaza post-October 7. Much of it was peaceful and within the bounds of the First Amendment, but some of it . . . not so much. Faced with a combination of First Amendment-protected expression and disruptive conduct, Shafik eventually called the police, who arrested demonstrators and temporarily broke up the encampment. 

Naturally, students on both sides of the conflict found her actions inadequate, but for different reasons. Pro-Israeli students called for her resignation, believing she wasn’t harsh enough on the protesters, while pro-Palestinian students objected to her decision to involve the police. 

If Columbia is to see brighter days, its new leaders need to get back to basics by prioritizing free expression, academic freedom, and healthy dialogue on campus. 

FIRE’s position cuts closer to the core of the issue: Columbia’s speech climate needs serious work. We’ve been saying so for years. 

After Columbia took last place in our 2023 Free Speech Rankings, before October 7 and the ensuing campus protests, we advised then-incoming President Shafik to prioritize improving Columbia’s policies in a manner that strongly protects free speech and clearly delineates unprotected conduct. Unfortunately, the school largely stayed its course, remaining near the bottom of the rankings. 

Now, Interim President Katrina Armstrong inherits a campus in crisis. 

FIRE’s forthcoming “College Free Speech Rankings” report notes that since 2020, Columbia has been the site of at least 14 speech controversies that resulted in a deplatforming, a scholar sanction, a student sanction, or an attempted disruption of an event. What’s more, students say they don’t understand the administration’s stance on speech. 

Columbia University

New York, NY

School Ranking

214 of 248

Due Process

Sexual misconduct: D

Non-sexual misconduct: F

Title IX: B

Speech Code

Yellow

Free Speech Climate

Overall score: 34

More Info

Prior to the campus encampments, about 5 in 10 Columbia students already said that it is “not at all” or “not very” clear that their administration protects free speech on campus. After the start of the encampments, this number only rose — as did the percentage of students who reported that “at least a couple of times a week” they feel like they cannot express their opinion because of how a student, professor, or the administration would respond.  

Some of this confusion can likely be attributed to Columbia’s policies. It earns a “yellow light” speech code rating from FIRE, meaning it maintains a litany of ambiguous policies that too easily encourage administrative abuse. These include:

• An event policy that restricts students’ ability to host events on campus. It states that students must obtain “advance approval” and typically must provide “ten working days advance notice” to host an event in an “outdoor University space” or an event with “more than 25 attendees.”
• At least four harassment-related policies, all of which define harassment differently and only one of which sufficiently tracks the Supreme Court’s narrow legal standard for peer harassment in an educational setting. The overly broad nature of these policies gives administrators ample opportunity to punish students for protected speech.

In this context, it’s hardly surprising that students don’t know what rights they can exercise and what rules they must follow on campus. It’s also unsurprising that students on both sides of a contentious issue are frustrated with the administration. Columbia needs to quickly set clear expectations if the upcoming semester is going to be better than the last.

Fortunately, FIRE has the resources to help it get the job done.

In February, Columbia took a page from our playbook and committed to institutional neutrality, commendably refraining from taking institutional positions on political issues to avoid chilling speech on campus. That’s a good start. To build on this positive development, Armstrong should review FIRE’s “10 common-sense reforms for colleges and universities.” Among other things, it advises academic leaders to protect free speech in policy and practice, prioritize free speech values in hiring and admission, and prohibit disruptive and violent conduct. Maybe most importantly, it urges colleges to stay true to their mission.

Stanford faculty follows Harvard and Syracuse, adopts institutional neutrality statement

News

Stanford’s faculty senate voted to reaffirm student and faculty speech rights and proposed the university remain neutral on political issues.

Read More

While Shafik was unable to put these principles into practice at the height of last semester’s controversy, her resignation letter speaks to their value. It advocates embracing “Columbia’s core mission to create and acquire knowledge” and appeals to the foundational values of “academic freedom and free speech; openness to ideas; and zero tolerance for discrimination of any kind.” 

“Even as tension, division, and politicization have disrupted our campus over the last year,” she said, “our core mission and values endure and will continue to guide us in meeting the challenges ahead.”

She’s right. If Columbia is to see brighter days, its new leaders need to get back to basics by prioritizing free expression, academic freedom, and healthy dialogue on campus. Only then will its academic purpose live again in the hearts and minds of its community.