New Staff Writers Alix Draper and Aman Kaur explore Columbia’s storied past and present with the known carcinogen asbestos.

Except for the small fact that it’s a carcinogen, asbestos is an extremely useful material. It’s fireproof, resists temperature-related degradation, and works well as an insulator. Humans have long recognized its utility–archaeologists have detected asbestos in crevice packing materials in Finland dating back at least 4,500 years. Seeing as many Europeans thought leeches were the paragon of modern medicine for centuries, the lack of knowledge of asbestos’ harmful properties is unsurprising. However, after large asbestos deposits were discovered in South Africa and Canada in the late 19th century, asbestos became a fixture in building materials through the 1980s in America (fun fact: asbestos was not fully banned in the U.S. until 2024! Nearly a third of all chlorine and sodium hydroxide—two water cleaning agents— contained asbestos and likely will for the next five years as regulations go into effect).

Over the 20th and 21st centuries, scientists have discovered that asbestos significantly increases the risk of lung cancer, mesothelioma, asbestosis, and pleural disease. To avoid turning this article into a scientific paper, we won’t detail the deleterious effects of all these diseases. Just know that you definitely don’t want to get any of them. More importantly, European environmental agencies first published studies associating asbestos with lung cancer and mesothelioma in the 1930s. By the 1960s, American agencies published studies establishing a causative relationship between asbestos and mesothelioma.

Here’s where Columbia comes in. According to Columbia’s webpage on asbestos maintenance, asbestos was used in building construction until the 1970s. They do not provide a specific year, but Columbia may have stopped using asbestos in construction when the Clean Air Act of 1970 passed, allowing the EPA to regulate the use and disposal of the substance.

So, it’s safe to say that any building constructed during and before the 1960s contains asbestos. Which is most of them. Ironically, the man credited with establishing the harmful effects of asbestos was a Columbia alumnus. Irving Selikoff, class of ’35, was a prominent medical doctor and occupational health expert. Selikoff opened a lung clinic in Paterson, New Jersey, in 1953, where he noticed unusual illnesses in 17 employees of a nearby asbestos plant. A couple of years later, 14 were dead from lung cancer or mesothelioma. In 1962, after becoming head of the Environmental Sciences Laboratory at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, Selikoff finally had the resources to establish the carcinogenic effects of asbestos. In 1964, his longitudinal study of insulator work and medical profiles found that insulators suffered from excess death rates of 25% compared to the rest of the population.

Asbestos only becomes a problem once released into the air, as its fibers are undetectable to the naked eye. This process can occur either during the construction or renovation period. Unless a building degrades due to age, workers bear the brunt of the burden, as Selikoff found in 1964. Columbia University likely would have been aware of Selikoff’s findings. Nonetheless, Columbia University Business School constructed Uris Hall using asbestos-containing materials two years after Selikoff’s study.

Asbestos in Uris became a point of contention when the Business School renovated the building in 1984. No less than nine articles appeared in the Columbia Spectator about asbestos exposure in Uris. The first closures occurred in late May because an outside contractor detected 0.37 fibers per cm³ in the building. At the time, health experts recommended no higher than 0.2, although regulations have been lowered to 0.1 since. An assistant director of the University Medical Service concluded that the workers did not require medical examination due to the short exposure period. However, Uris Hall employees reported a lack of communication and respect for worker’s concerns during the renovation process. The firm Columbia hired to oversee the renovations had reportedly performed poorly twice, setting workers on edge.

Columbia hired a new firm in July to speed up the removal process, and Uris Hall re-opened on July 15, 1984 (although building additions in Uris were not completed until the end of the year). It may be true that Uris Hall employees and independent contractors suffered little direct harm from asbestos. However, Business School Dean John Burton’s comment summed up the administration’s attitude toward their employees when he received the worker’s petition regarding asbestos concerns: “Most of their issues are moot.” Lack of communication and empathy between the administration and Uris Hall workers turned the renovation into a period of uncertainty and fear for those directly involved and the community.

A July 15 editorial in the Spectator summarized the mood on campus as asbestos continued to be discovered in other buildings such as Schermerhorn and residence hall John Jay: “People are scared.” Throughout the ’80s, asbestos continued to be a student concern as intermittent renovations and asbestos checks revealed asbestos in more and more campus buildings. Discoveries and concerns slowed down in the ’90s as Columbia systematically removed asbestos from its buildings. However, asbestos still has a presence on campus.

In October 2015, a student at Columbia compiled recordings of environmental issues in Columbia’s Prentis Hall, which houses the Computer Music Center at the Manhattanville campus, which featured extensive claims of asbestos in the building. One memo from Columbia Music Professor Aaron Fox argued in part that the university had never done proper testing for asbestos in the Computer Music Center. Another email from Douglas Repetto, Director of Research at the Computer Music Center, wrote that Prentis Hall is “full of asbestos.” A 2010 report conducted by Empire Environmental Ltd, a company specializing in supporting its clients through environmental concerns, found asbestos in two rooms at Prentis Hall. Rumors have continued swirling around campus that the asbestos in the Computer Music Center has not fully been resolved.

As recently as Autumn 2023, a Barnard student residing on-campus in freshman housing claimed there was asbestos in the roof of Brooks Hall. Brooks Hall was the first building of the four residence halls that house the vast majority of Barnard first-years and was originally opened for the 1907-1908 academic year. Despite its age, Barnard is still actively working on renovating Brooks in 2025, as asbestos has remained steadfast in some of its units. 

The worst part is that this was not the first time asbestos was recently found in Barnard residence halls. In 2018, Bwog reported that Barnard discovered asbestos wrapped around Plimpton Hall. Startled residents were greeted by a notice on their doors informing them of the asbestos but were otherwise not made aware of any potential health risks.

Current issues with asbestos have not solely been in the residence halls. Many Columbia University employees were blindsided by the nearby Union Theological Seminary’s asbestos abatement (intended to prevent asbestos from spreading into the air), as staff were not informed about it until after the abatement had been completed, greatly frustrating Columbia’s Sociology department, as Bwog reported in 2019. The question surrounding asbestos at Columbia is clear: with how expensive tuition and housing are at the university—and with concern for anyone who frequents campus; students, staff, and faculty alike—why are there recent developments to a health issue known about for decades, and how can the university move forward prioritizing the health of the wider community? 

What may be the most considerate option may also be the most unrealistic—a complete inspection of every university-affiliated building, likely over multiple years, to ensure that all risks of asbestos are mitigated as quickly as possible so this issue does not spiral for decades to come. This is improbable for a number of reasons, including the fact that the university’s buildings are used year-round, and potentially shutting down multiple important community resources would be chaotic, even if for good reason. It is possible that departments and offices would be displaced, or students would have to find last-minute accommodation, which would also not be pleasant for Columbia students and faculty who have been raising the alarm about asbestos in the university’s buildings. Even so, many believe that the university should address this long-standing issue with transparency and timely communication to all members of the community.

Asbestos via Flickr