Minouche Shafik of Columbia votes against campus free speech
Minouche Shafik, the president of Columbia University, promotes civil discourse and free speech, encouraging students to engage in respectful conversations despite differing viewpoints.
However, her actions have contradicted her words when it comes to supporting free speech.
Shafik, not only the president of Columbia but also a member of the UK’s House of Lords, has a voting record that raises concerns about her stance on free speech protections.
In December 2022, Shafik voted to weaken free speech protections in the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill by eliminating Clause 4, which would have allowed students and faculty to sue their educational institutions for violations of free speech.
Her vote against Clause 4 suggests that she does not prioritize enhancing the expressive rights of professors and students through legal protections.
As the leader of a prestigious academic institution, shouldn’t Shafik stand for accountability and champion free speech?
Academic freedom is vital for higher education, and every university president should support and uphold free speech rights rather than undermine them.
The ability to hold schools accountable through legal action is crucial in protecting free speech rights and ensuring that institutions respect these rights. Removing this avenue weakens the ability of individuals to seek justice when their free speech is violated.
Toby Young, the founder of Free Speech Union, highlighted Shafik’s vote as weakening an important enforcement mechanism in the bill.
Ultimately, after various rounds of votes and amendments, Clause 4 was reinstated in the final version of the bill, albeit with weaker language.
Despite the watering down of the legislation, Young views the passage of the bill as a step towards protecting expressive freedom.
Since becoming a member of the House of Lords in 2020, Shafik has voted only eight times, with her vote against academic free speech protections standing out as a concerning choice.
Her actions seem inconsistent with her professed values.
Following campus disruptions and protests, Shafik urged the Columbia community to engage in constructive dialogue and uphold free speech values, despite her vote against strengthening free speech protections.
In a video statement on May 3rd, she emphasized the importance of civil disagreement and dialogue in universities.
She also penned an article in the Financial Times, calling for clearer boundaries on free speech at universities and introspection on the matter.
However, Shafik’s voting history in the House of Lords reveals a different story.
While her recent statements may promote free speech values, her actions as a member of the House of Lords suggest otherwise.
It is promising that Shafik acknowledges the importance of free speech on campuses, but concerning that it took significant unrest for her to recognize this.
Furthermore, her record of opposing academic freedom protections raises doubts about her suitability to lead a prestigious institution like Columbia University.
An unwavering commitment to free speech should be a fundamental requirement for anyone aspiring to the role of university president.
