On Thursday, September 5, 24 Jewish faculty members sent an email to the Columbia and Barnard administration surrounding the Antisemitism Task Force’s second report, citing misrepresentations and a lack of political context.

Editor’s warning: Mentions of antisemitism

In response to the Columbia University Antisemitism Task Force’s second report, a group of Columbia and Barnard Jewish faculty emailed the administration with criticism surrounding the report’s findings, methodology, and impact. Published also as an open letter, their message argues that the Task Force’s report misrepresents the complexity of antisemitism and political tensions on campus. They claim it fosters a harmful narrative that could stifle academic freedom and misinform public perception by reportedly oversimplifying the complex political tensions surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict. 

While 24 Jewish faculty members initially signed the letter, seven more added their signatures after the letter’s delivery; 16 additional non-Jewish faculty members signed their names in solidarity. The letter was addressed to Columbia Interim President Katrina Armstrong, Barnard President Laura Rosenbury, Teachers College President Thomas Bailey, Columbia Provost Angela Olinto, and additional members of the Columbia administration. 

The faculty letter was sent before a Columbia Daily Spectator article on September 6 revealed that Interim President Armstrong had reviewed a draft of the Task Force report and urged its swift publication. The Jewish faculty members acknowledge that while they join the report’s authors in “abhorring all instances of harassment, intimidation, and violence against students for being Jewish,” they argue that the report also contains “misrepresentations” of several incidents and omits key context that could reshape the understanding of the events described. 

In the letter, one of the central critiques raised by faculty signatories is the report’s alleged neglect to address the broader political and social context of the Israel-Palestine conflict. While they state that the report “rightly addresses the heinous Hamas attack of October 7,” faculty argue that it fails to address “Israel’s ongoing bombardment and siege of Gaza.”

This omission, according to the faculty, presents student protests against Israel as stemming from “Jew-hatred” rather than as reactions to what they describe as “one of the most horrific humanitarian crises of their generation.” The faculty also cites research from Brandeis University suggesting that there is “barely any overlap” between college students who criticize Israel versus those who harbor hostility toward Jewish people.

The faculty claims that the Task Force uses “slippery definitions” of key terms such as “antisemitism,” “Zionism,” and “anti-Zionism,” specifically alleging that the Task Force equates anti-Zionism with antisemitism. The faculty contends that by conflating opposition to Israel with antisemitism, the report stifles open dialogue and political debate on campus. 

In particular, the faculty states that the report defines Zionism simply as “Israel’s right to exist,” arguing instead that this definition ignores the central, contested idea of Israel’s existence as a Jewish state, which they write includes the ongoing settlement of Palestinian territories. The faculty claims that the report also “misses the pedagogical opportunity” to highlight that the definitions of Zionism and anti-Zionism have long been debated, both within and outside the Jewish community.

The faculty also raises concerns about the report’s methodology, stating that the Task Force relied on unverified and, in some cases, false testimonies that show the campus’s “climate in the worst possible light.” They highlight a specific incident involving an alleged assault on an Israeli student, which was later proven to be falsely reported. Despite this, the incident was included in the initial version of the report, which was approved by President Armstrong. The open letter states that this incident, as well as other factual errors, were corrected without public notice around September 3. 

Moreover, the faculty voices concerns over the report’s portrayal of student organizations affiliated with Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD). The Task Force claimed that certain student groups affiliated with CUAD had barred pro-Israel students. However, the faculty argues that little evidence was provided beyond the highly publicized LionLez case, where the former LionLez president stated that “the Holocaust wasn’t special” and Zionists were not allowed to attend club events. This lack of evidence and general context, they claim, further conflates student protestors to antisemites. 

The faculty argues that the Task Force is instead aiding in building a case against Columbia that is aligned with a “broader right-wing movement to weaponize charges of antisemitism” to suppress political speech critical of Israel and to undermine the legitimacy of institutions such as universities. 

In response to the report’s recommendations, the faculty cautions against using organizations like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) as a resource, citing the ADL’s record of conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism. Instead, they recommend the University adopt more inclusive resources that address the broader spectrum of bias on campus, including materials that support Muslim, Arab, and Palestinian students.

The faculty concludes the letter by urging the University to disband the Antisemitism Task Force, arguing that its work threatens to deepen divisions on campus, harm academic freedom, and further polarize the University community. They offer their expertise on Jewish history, culture, and antisemitism as a resource to help Columbia navigate these challenging times, and request a meeting with the University’s leadership to discuss their concerns.

As discussions surrounding the Task Force’s second report continue, the faculty letter adds another frame of context. Columbia University’s leadership, and namely the newly-appointed Interim President Armstrong, are now tasked with finding a balance between addressing concerns of antisemitism while fostering a campus climate that allows for open debate and academic inquiry.

Low Library via Bwog Archives