Columbia Learns Nothing
Columbia University is once again under scrutiny, this time following a series of controversial faculty decisions that are intensifying national concern about the university’s direction. Rather than signaling reform, Columbia and its affiliated institutions have moved to bring in academics whose records have already drawn criticism at peer universities, including Harvard. (RELATED: The Cost of Harvard’s Intransigence)
This comes at a time when Columbia is already facing federal oversight, financial consequences, and sustained backlash over antisemitism on campus. After two years of escalating incidents, reputational damage, and mounting external pressure, these latest moves are being viewed not as isolated decisions, but as a continuation of the very patterns that placed the university at the center of a national crisis. (RELATED: Columbia Strikes Deal With Trump. Will Rest of Higher Education Follow?)
A University Under Federal and Financial Pressure
Columbia University’s current crisis has been growing at an increasing rate. Over the past two years, they have been receiving a combination of federal investigations, civil rights complaints, and growing public pressure has placed the university at the center of a national debate over antisemitism on campus.
At the heart of these concerns is a simple question: has Columbia done enough to protect Jewish students and uphold its obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act?
The consequences have been significant. The university is now dealing with financial penalties, rising compliance costs, and increased federal oversight. At the same time, its internal systems, especially how it enforces rules and handles protests and faculty conduct, are facing heightened scrutiny.
Persistent Concerns About Faculty Conduct
Beyond policies and investigations, attention has increasingly turned to Columbia’s faculty.
Several professors have been linked to rhetoric and activities that critics say contribute to a hostile campus environment for Jewish students.
Among the most frequently cited are Joseph Massad and Hamid Dabashi. Both have drawn sustained criticism for public statements and academic work that, according to observers, go beyond political critique. Massad faced backlash following comments after the Oct. 7 attacks that were widely interpreted as sympathetic to violence and supportive of Hamas. Dabashi, meanwhile, has a long record of inflammatory statements about Israel and Zionism that critics argue cross into antisemitic tropes.
Their continued prominence at Columbia has raised a broader concern: whether the university is willing to confront the impact of such rhetoric on its campus climate. For many observers, keeping and elevating these voices signals a lack of accountability and calls into question Columbia’s commitment to fostering an environment that is truly inclusive for all students.
New Hiring Decisions Raise Further Questions
Instead of easing these concerns, Columbia’s latest moves have intensified them.
The university’s broader academic network is now bringing in new figures whose records have already drawn scrutiny elsewhere.
At the center of this development is the hiring of Diane Moore and Hussein Rashid by Union Theological Seminary (UTS), a Columbia-affiliated institution with close academic ties to the university. Both previously led Harvard Divinity School’s Religion and Public Life program, which came under review by Harvard’s Task Force on Antisemitism. (RELATED: Trump v. Harvard: Battle of the Heavyweights)
According to that report, the program was widely perceived as promoting a one-sided, anti-Israel perspective. It also highlighted efforts described as “dezionizing Jewish consciousness” and advancing a “decolonial” interpretation of Israel and Jewish identity. Critics argued that this approach risked targeting students based on their religious identity and contributing to a hostile academic environment.
Moore and Rashid left Harvard abruptly in early 2025, just as the university was facing mounting legal pressure and taking steps to address antisemitism-related complaints.
They are now set to lead a new Religion and Public Life initiative at UTS, a move that has raised concerns about the transfer of controversial academic frameworks into Columbia’s orbit, at a time when the university is already under federal scrutiny.
At the same time, Columbia has considered additional appointments, including Rosie Bsheer, a historian of the modern Middle East and associate professor at Harvard. Bsheer has contributed to platforms such as Jadaliyya, known for its strong critical stance on Israel, and has been associated with programming criticized for lacking ideological balance. (RELATED: Trump: Harvard ‘Deliberately Indifferent’ to Anti-Semitism, Risks Losing All Fed Money)
Taken together, these decisions are being viewed not as isolated cases, but as part of a broader pattern. Critics argue that Columbia is not correcting course, but instead reinforcing the same dynamics that have already led to financial consequences, federal oversight, and reputational damage.
A Pattern, Not an Exception
What is unfolding at Columbia is increasingly seen as more than a series of individual controversies.
The combination of federal scrutiny, financial penalties, and continued controversial hiring decisions points to a deeper institutional issue. As universities across the country face growing pressure to address campus climate concerns, Columbia is becoming a key test case for accountability in higher education.
At other institutions, including Harvard and UCLA, legal action has already pushed administrations to take more concrete steps. Whether similar pressure will be needed to drive meaningful change at Columbia remains an open question.
The answer may ultimately determine not only Columbia’s future, but how seriously universities across the country respond to the challenges now confronting them.
READ MORE from Anna Miller: