From Scholarship to Activism: The Evolution of Columbia’s Journey

The recent protests at Columbia University have caught the eye of the American public: students voicing support for a Palestinian state, activists setting up a large tent encampment on campus, and masked occupiers taking control of Hamilton Hall.

Some view it as a sign of ancient antisemitism penetrating the Ivy League, while others see parallels with the mass demonstrations of 1968.

Columbia president Minouche Shafik appeared stunned in her statement to students, expressing “deep sadness” over the campus chaos.

However, for those familiar with Columbia in recent years, the unrest should not come as a surprise.

Seeds of discontent

Beneath the surface of the campus protests lies a darker story: the university’s ideological alignment that led to this moment.

For decades, Columbia has fostered conditions conducive to pro-Hamas protests, with substantial investments in postcolonialism, diversity, equity, and inclusion, and glorification of student activism.

Although these terms may sound harmless, they often mask darker realities.

Postcolonial theory, for instance, has been linked to antisemitism, DEI can stoke racial tensions, and student activism can justify violence.

Columbia, once a respected American institution, has lost its way and must undergo a profound reckoning.

Understanding the roots of Columbia’s current situation is crucial.

The first driving force behind the unrest is ideology.

Columbia has long been a pioneer in postcolonialism, decolonization, and Islamism, framing progressive views of Third World and Middle Eastern issues.

These ideologies often portray white Europeans and Jewish Zionists as oppressors and Third World nations, such as Palestinians, as oppressed, justifying violence as a means of liberation.

Columbia’s academic departments employ leading postcolonial scholars, publish numerous books on the subject, and offer numerous courses related to postcolonialism.

Radical faculty

The university has attracted radical figures in the Middle East studies, such as Rashid Khalidi, who has a history of anti-Israel rhetoric.

Columbia’s Center for Palestine Studies and Center for the Study of Muslim Societies host faculty with anti-Israel views, further perpetuating anti-Israel narratives on campus.

The expansion of postcolonial programs, funded partly by Middle Eastern donors, has pushed BDS, Islamist, and anti-Israel narratives within the university.

Reprogrammed

Columbia’s significant DEI initiatives, led by former president Lee Bollinger, have entrenched left-wing ideologies on campus, under the guise of promoting antiracism.

The university has invested heavily in DEI training, support, recruitment, and fundraising to address perceived racial injustices.

These efforts have fostered a sense of perpetual grievance among marginalized students, focusing on power rather than truth.

Repeating history

Student activism at Columbia has a long history, with past demonstrations shaping the campus culture and inspiring ongoing activism.

Faculty members like Fawziah Qadir promote activism and social movements within the university, encouraging students to propose actions for future campaigns.

Students have been indoctrinated and trained to engage in radical left-wing protests, perpetuating a cycle of demonstrations and unrest.

All wrong

The university administration, particularly under Bollinger’s leadership, has set the stage for the current unrest, promoting left-wing activism while later condemning the actions of students.

Columbia’s intifada reflects a campus divided, with students, faculty, and administration all contributing to the chaos.

External stakeholders, like Congress, could influence the situation by reevaluating funding for universities like Columbia and imposing restrictions on ideological programs.

It is time for a change to address the structural conditions perpetuating the Ivy League intifada.

Congress could take action to limit left-wing activism on campus and redirect funding to support more balanced academic environments.

It’s time for a campaign that aligns with the values of the American public.

Christopher F. Rufo is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and a contributing editor of City Journal, from which this essay is adapted.