Columbia University protests and the lessons of "Gym Crow"
In the early morning hours of April 30, 1968, then-Columbia University President Grayson Kirk summoned the NYPD to arrest hundreds of student protestors. About 1,000 police officers arrived on campus and, wielding nightsticks, violently arrested about 700 students. Almost 150 protesters ended up in the hospital with lacerations, a few broken bones, and other injuries.
The student protesters had occupied several university buildings, forcing the school to suspend classes, in protest of Columbia's plans to build a large gymnasium in Morningside Park, a public park used by the Black community in Harlem. Columbia was planning to build the gym on public land, but 88% of the facility would be limited to staff and students. Only 12% of the gym would be available to community residents, and they would be forced to use a separate entrance at the bottom of the facility. Protesters called the proposal "Gym Crow."
Others involved in the protest, which occurred against the backdrop of the Vietnam War, objected to Columbia's involvement with the Institute for Defense Analyses, an organization that conducted "weapons evaluation and other research for the Department of Defense."
Columbia was goaded into action by the political right. In a column, National Review founder William F. Buckley chided Columbia for having an "authority gap." Buckley claimed that the protests were not about the gym. (Forcing "Negros" to use a separate entrance to the gym was not evidence of "race prejudice," Buckley argued.) Rather, the protests were simply a result of "children… looking for an opportunity to rebel." Buckley urged Kirk to call the police on his own students.
While Buckley's view prevailed on April 30, over the years, Columbia came to embrace the protests — and political activism — as an important part of its legacy. In the aftermath of the police raid, the university sided with the protestors, "canceling the gym and severing ties with a weapons-research institute affiliated with the Defense Department." Kirk resigned as president within a year.
It also resulted in structural reforms at Columbia that were designed to give students and faculty a more formal role in setting university policy. In 1969, the University Senate, a 100-person body consisting mostly of faculty and students, was created by referendum. Today, the University Statutes stipulate that a president may only consider summoning the NYPD (or other "external authorities") to end a demonstration if it "poses a clear and present danger to persons, property, or the substantial functioning of any division of the University." Even then, the University Statutes require "consultation with a majority of a panel established by the University Senate’s Executive Committee" before the president takes action.
In 2018, on the 50th anniversary of the 1968 arrests, then-Columbia President — and noted First Amendment scholar — Lee Bollinger said the decision to call in the NYPD in 1968 was “a serious breach of the ethos of the university.” By 2018, "a tradition of student protest is touted as part of the [Columbia University] brand."
But now, 56 years later, history is repeating itself.
Columbia University in 2024
On April 18, 2024, Columbia President Minouche Shafik wrote the NYPD regarding a group of students who were occupying the campus' south lawn. The day before, the students had established a "Gaza Solidarity Encampment" in protest of Israel's operations in Gaza — and Columbia's investments in companies allegedly profiting from the war. The Israeli assault on Gaza, launched in response to Hamas' October 7, 2023, terrorist attack, has killed thousands of civilians and created a humanitarian crisis. Shafik accused the Columbia students, whose tuition costs $66,000, of trespassing on their own campus. She requested "the NYPD’s help to remove these individuals." Shafik claimed the students were not authorized to protest on the lawn and posed a "clear and present danger." (A policy limiting protests to designated areas was only put in place in February.)
The NYPD responded to the request by descending on the University and arresting 108 students. Some students were restrained in zip ties for several hours and transported to a local police precinct before being released. Shafik also said that all students "participating in the encampment" have been "suspended" for an indefinite period.
According to the NYPD, the protest was entirely non-violent. "To put this in perspective, the students that were arrested were peaceful, offered no resistance whatsoever, and were saying what they wanted to say in a peaceful manner," NYPD Chief John Chell said.
Antisemitism exists on and off the Columbia campus. But the mass arrests conflated peaceful pro-Palestinian protests with prejudice and hatred toward Jewish people.
Shafik claimed she "complied with the requirements of Section 444 of the University Statutes." Section 444 requires "consultation" with the University Senate Executive Committee. While Shafik informed the committee of her decision, it is unclear if a genuine consultation occurred. "The executive committee did not approve the presence of NYPD on campus," Jeanine D’Armiento, chair of the Committee, told the Columbia Spectator.
Like in 1968, shortly before Shafik called in the NYPD, she faced substantial political pressure from the right. On April 17, 2024, the day before the NYPD raid, Shafik testified for three hours before the Republican-controlled House Committee on Education. The hearing, Columbia in Crisis: Columbia University’s Response to Antisemitism, was modeled after prior hearings that forced the presidents of Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania to resign. (Shafik missed the earlier hearing because she was traveling internationally.)
Throughout last week's hearing, Shafik and other representatives of Columbia touted their "work with external investigators and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to identify and discipline students who breach policy." Shafik assured members of the committee that Columbia students "are getting the message that violations of our policies will have consequences."
During the hearing, Congressman Rick Allen (R-GA) told Shakik that, in the Bible, God is "real clear" that "if you bless Israel, I will bless you" and "if you curse Israel, I will curse you." Allen asked Shakik if she wanted "Columbia University to be cursed by God?"
"Definitely not," Shafik replied.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Chair Virginia Foxx (R-NC) warned Shafik that "there is still a significant amount of work to be done" at Columbia, and she expected to see "tangible progress." Irene Mulvey, the president of the American Association of University Professors, called the hearing "a new era of McCarthyism where a House Committee is using college presidents and professors for political theater."
Shafik's actions were blasted in a statement issued on Friday by the Columbia and Barnard College chapters of the American Association of University Professors:
The American Association of University Professors has defined two central pillars of higher education in America: academic freedom and shared governance…In the last three days, Columbia University President Shafik and her administration have seriously violated both. We are shocked at her failure to mount any defense of the free inquiry central to the educational mission of a university in a democratic society and at her willingness to appease legislators seeking to interfere in university affairs. She has demonstrated flagrant disregard of shared governance in her acceptance of partisan charges that anti-war demonstrators are violent and antisemitic and in her unilateral and wildly disproportionate punishment of peacefully protesting students.
Shafik also drew a rebuke from the Columbia student council. In a statement, the council said that "students possess the inherent right to engage in peaceful protest without fear of retribution or harm” and called for "the preservation of freedom of speech and expression among students."
Shafik's actions, however, appear to have backfired. In the wake of mass arrests, the protests on the south lawn have continued and inspired others to protest in solidarity across the globe. The Columbia protesters are now calling not only for divestment but, in an echo of the 1968 protests, "an end to Columbia expansion into West Harlem."
White House issues statement
On Sunday, the White House released a statement in response to the protests at Columbia, denouncing "calls for violence and physical intimidation targeting Jewish students":
While every American has the right to peaceful protest, calls for violence and physical intimidation targeting Jewish students and the Jewish community are blatantly Antisemitic, unconscionable, and dangerous — they have absolutely no place on any college campus, or anywhere in the United States of America.
What incidents prompted this statement? A White House spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. But some media outlets are interpreting it as a response to this video, in which two unidentified men promise more terrorist attacks against Israel. According to the individual who posted the video, the incident did not occur on Columbia's campus. There is no evidence that Columbia students were involved.
An NBC reporter, Antonia Hylton, who was on Columbia's campus with protesters, reported no instances of "violence or aggression" among students.
Hylton said she observed aggression outside the campus gates but that these incidents did not involve students.
Unfortunately, the protest against Israel's actions against Palestinians, especially the destruction in Gaza that has resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent people and children has morphed not only into anti-Semitism but also into extreme anti-American rhetoric in some places [Michigan, where protestors are chanting "Death to America"]. We are all witnessing the dangers of protest when it turns from peaceful to expressions of hatred. Missing in Judd's article appears to be how the Columbia U. protestors have harassed the Jewish students who were simply walking to get to their classes--this was experienced as disruption of University functioning. This article shows no examples of any harassment so maybe the harrassment came from students who were not part of the peaceful encampment. So important to proceed investigation without bias, but with any proof.
My understanding from a student who attends Columbia currently is Jewish students are leaving campus because they feel unsafe. There have also been documented cases of hate rhetoric used against Jewish students during these protests. You should investigate that too.