Columbia University President Minouche Shafik testified before a House committee regarding the response to a professor’s controversial piece that labeled Hamas’ attack as a “resistance offensive.” Lawmakers criticized the professor, Joseph Massad, for his use of the word “awesome” and praising the Palestinian resistance fighters. Shafik condemned Massad’s statements in the piece and confirmed that he was under investigation for discriminatory remarks, a fact that Massad claimed was news to him.
Shafik mentioned that Massad had been spoken to by the head of his department and dean but maintained that she did not participate in those discussions. She stated that Massad was told his language was unacceptable. Massad contradicted this statement, claiming that he was not spoken to in that manner and had not faced any reprimand. When CNN reached out to Massad’s department chair and Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences for confirmation, the responses were inconclusive.
Initially, Shafik stated that Massad was no longer the chair of the Academic Review Committee at Columbia, but Massad disputed this, claiming he remained in the position until his term expired. Another Columbia spokesperson said that Massad had chaired his final meeting of the committee, without clarifying if he had been removed. CNN also reached out to other professors mentioned during the hearing, including Mohamed Abdou and Shai Davidai, who were accused of expressing support for Hamas and being under investigation for harassment, respectively.
Abdou did not respond to requests for comment, while Davidai denied speaking against students by name and claimed he was under investigation solely for his social media posts criticizing “pro-Hamas” student organizations and professors. The uncertainty surrounding Massad’s position at the Academic Review Committee, as well as the investigations into Abdou and Davidai, suggest ongoing tensions within Columbia University regarding freedom of expression, antisemitism, and academic accountability. The discrepancies between Shafik’s testimony and the professors’ accounts highlight the complexities of addressing controversial statements and actions within academia.
At the heart of the issue is the balance between academic freedom and responsibility, as well as the challenge of maintaining a diverse and inclusive campus environment while upholding principles of free speech. The differing perspectives presented by Shafik, Massad, and other professors involved in the controversy underscore the need for transparent communication and fair due process in addressing such sensitive matters. The outcome of the investigations into Massad, Abdou, and Davidai will likely have broader implications for academic institutions grappling with how to navigate political and social issues within the context of higher education.
