Columbia University acting president Claire Shipman labeled a Jewish board member a “mole” and actively worked to replace her with an Arab representative while concealing negotiations with anti-Israel protestors.
Key Takeaways
- Claire Shipman, Columbia University’s acting president, attempted to keep pro-Israel board member Shoshana Shendelman uninformed about negotiations with anti-Israel demonstrators.
- Shipman urgently sought to replace Shendelman, who had advocated against antisemitism on campus, with “somebody from the middle east or who is Arab.”
- Rep. Elise Stefanik and Education Committee Chair Tim Walberg launched an investigation into Columbia for potential Title VI violations and failure to protect Jewish students.
- The Department of Education has opened three separate investigations into antisemitic discrimination at Columbia University.
- Columbia officials have been found to have acted with “deliberate indifference” toward harassment faced by Jewish students.
Leadership Deliberately Excluded Jewish Board Member
Documents reveal a disturbing pattern of exclusion and prejudice at the highest levels of Columbia University’s administration. Acting president Claire Shipman instructed vice-chair Wanda Greene to keep pro-Israel board member Shoshana Shendelman in the dark about negotiations with anti-Israel protesters. When directly asked by Greene, “Do you believe that she is a mole? A Fox in the henhouse?” Shipman responded unequivocally: “I do.” This exchange confirms that university leadership deliberately targeted Shendelman, who comes from a family that fled Iran and has been vocal against antisemitism on campus.
“We need to get somebody from the Middle East [sic] or who is Arab on our board. Quickly, I think. Somehow,” said Claire Shipman, Acting President of Columbia University
Shipman’s desire to quickly install an Arab representative while simultaneously removing a Jewish board member who had been advocating for Jewish student safety raises serious questions about the university’s commitment to diversity and inclusion. The urgency expressed in her communications suggests this was not simply about broadening representation but rather about silencing a specific perspective that was deemed “extraordinarily unhelpful” to the administration’s handling of campus protests.
Congressional Investigation Into Title VI Violations
The controversy has prompted House Republican Leadership Chairwoman Elise Stefanik and Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Tim Walberg to launch a formal investigation into Columbia University. Their joint letter to Shipman raises alarming concerns about the university’s compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs receiving federal financial assistance. The investigation specifically addresses whether Columbia has fostered a hostile environment for Jewish students and failed to fulfill its legal obligations.
“The Committee on Education and Workforce (Committee) is continuing to investigate antisemitism at Columbia University (Columbia), including whether there was or is a hostile environment against Jewish students on Columbia’s campus and whether the university is fulfilling its obligation under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) to end any harassment, eliminate any hostile environment and its effects, and prevent any harassment from recurring,” said the lawmakers.
Particularly concerning to investigators was Shipman’s apparent dismissal of congressional oversight, which she reportedly characterized as “Capitol Hill nonsense.” This attitude reflects a troubling disregard for federal authority and accountability at a time when antisemitic incidents on college campuses have reached alarming levels. The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has already launched three separate investigations into antisemitic discrimination at Columbia, indicating the seriousness of these allegations.
Pattern of “Deliberate Indifference” Toward Jewish Students
Federal agencies have already made preliminary findings against Columbia University. In May, the Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Education determined that Columbia had acted with “deliberate indifference” toward the severe and pervasive harassment faced by Jewish students. This finding carries significant weight as it establishes a pattern of institutional neglect rather than isolated incidents, potentially strengthening the case for further federal intervention and oversight.
“Throughout the Committee’s investigation, Columbia has continued to be plagued by antisemitic harassment. The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has launched three separate investigations into antisemitic discrimination on campus. In May, the Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Education found that Columbia had acted with deliberate indifference toward the severe and pervasive harassment faced by Jewish students at the university,” said the lawmakers
When confronted with evidence of antisemitism on campus, Columbia has offered limited explanations. The university responded to the Free Beacon that the communications were from a “challenging time” and are being published “out of context,” but declined to provide additional context that might explain Shipman’s concerning statements. This lack of transparency only reinforces the perception that the university is more interested in managing public relations than addressing the underlying issues of discrimination and harassment.
Potential Legislative Changes on the Horizon
The congressional investigation could lead to significant changes in how universities are held accountable for protecting students from discrimination. Stefanik and Walberg’s letter explicitly states that the committee is considering “potential legislative changes, including legislation that specifically creates further accountability for campus leaders.” This would represent a major shift in how federal oversight of higher education institutions is conducted, particularly regarding their handling of discrimination complaints.
“As antisemitism continues to rise across the United States, it is critical that our institutions of higher education have leaders who firmly understand and carry out their obligation to protect Jewish students. The Committee is therefore seeking clarity regarding several messages you sent that appear to downplay and even mock the pervasive culture of antisemitism on Columbia’s campus,” said the lawmakers.
The investigation also raises concerns about the promotion of Rashid Khalidi, who has reportedly supported terrorist violence, suggesting that Columbia’s leadership has shown poor judgment that extends beyond the treatment of Shendelman. These decisions, taken together, paint a picture of an institution that has failed to uphold its responsibility to provide a safe learning environment for all students, regardless of their background or religious beliefs.
