Marxist Manifesto at Columbia U Stokes Concerns Over Anti-Semitism & Ideological Bias

Marxist Manifesto at Columbia U Stokes Concerns Over Anti-Semitism & Ideological Bias

Edited by: Fern Sidman

At Columbia University, a controversial manifesto linking the institution’s protests to global anti-colonial movements has surfaced, raising concerns about external influence on student activism and the potential for escalating tensions on campus, according to report on Sunday in the New York Post.   The document, titled “National Liberation Struggles,” was reportedly discovered in a lab class and has quickly become a focal point in the ongoing debate over campus protests and their implications.

The six-page manifesto claims to connect the dots between Columbia University’s recent protests, which have been characterized as pro-terror, and broader anti-colonial movements historically recognized for their revolutionary stance against oppression. The Post report indicated that according to a Jewish student who came across the document, it has been distributed among students, possibly by outside agitators aiming to intensify the university’s protest activities against the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

Rory Lancman, senior counsel at the Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and a Columbia Law School graduate, has criticized the manifesto’s contents, suggesting that it dangerously frames Jewish people as scapegoats and fuels virulent anti-Semitism aimed at the destruction of the Jewish state, as per the information in the Post report. Lancman’s remarks shine a proverbial spotlight on the serious implications of such rhetoric, highlighting fears that it could incite violence and deepen societal divides.

The emergence of this manifesto supports claims by figures such as New York City Mayor Eric Adams, who has suggested that the protests at Columbia are being exacerbated by external forces, the report in the Post affirmed. This idea of outside agitators infiltrating campus movements is not new but gains significant weight in light of the document’s radical content and its apparent circulation among the student body.

Earlier this month tensions at Columbia escalated dramatically when an anti-Israel group took over an academic building, leading to a police intervention in riot gear to arrest the protestors. The Post also reported that this incident reflects the increasing militancy of campus protests and the potential for these movements to disrupt academic and daily life at the university.

The manifesto articulates a clear call for Columbia University to sever all ties with Israeli institutions and companies profiting from the occupation of “Palestine,” positioning the university’s protest movement within a larger, global anti-imperialist framework. Notably, the Post reported that it challenges students to consider their role in wider struggles against oppression, suggesting that the fight against what it describes as the Zionist project is part of a broader battle for international liberation.

The document, which critics argue inflames anti-Semitism, paints the United States, Israel, and Western nations as oppressors and contrasts them with what it describes as the revolutionary models of Cuba and Vietnam,  the Post report said.  Notably, it overlooks the oppressive regimes of China and North Korea, barely critiquing these while presenting an unbalanced view of global politics. Also noted in the Post report was that rhe document does not address other significant global issues, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which is conspicuously absent from discussions of liberation and freedom.

Further, the manifesto connects various global and local grievances, citing the US’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, the death of George Floyd, and rising anti-Black violence as examples of Western countries prioritizing their interests over justice and human rights, the Post report indicated. It makes a striking claim that the unconditional support for Israel’s actions in Gaza by the US exemplifies this bias.

The inclusion of North Korea as a reference point in the manifesto has been particularly controversial, given its status as one of the most repressive regimes globally. This mention raises questions about the ideological consistency and ethical foundations of the document’s arguments, according to the Post report.  Critics argue that any manifesto that seemingly gives a “pass” to such regimes while harshly criticizing democratic countries reveals a significant bias that could undermine its credibility and fuel divisive sentiments.

The manifesto posits that American workers and students share more in common with individuals from countries such as “Palestine,” Sudan, Korea, and India than with the elite in cities such as Washington, New York, London, and Tel Aviv. This narrative taps into a broader anti-elitist sentiment that often resonates with university audiences, framing the U.S. and its allies as part of a global oppressor class, according to the information contained in the Post report. By applauding the spread of communism in Vietnam and Cuba—both historically supported by China and the former Soviet Union—the document critiques U.S. foreign policy and economic systems, suggesting that they serve elite interests at the expense of the global majority, the Post report added.

The manifesto’s content and its apparent influence on campus protests have drawn sharp criticism from political figures such as New York State Republican Party Chairman Ed Cox, who argued that the document is a clear indication of communist and anti-American forces organizing on college campuses. The report in the Post said that Cox labeled the creators of the manifesto as “Marxist-Leninists” and accused them of exploiting anti-Israel sentiments to stoke broader anti-American sentiment among students. He expressed concern that these groups are manipulating “gullible students,” whom he sees as vulnerable to such radical ideologies.

Columbia University’s administration has notably declined to comment on the manifesto and the allegations surrounding it. This silence raises questions about how universities should respond to the circulation of such politically charged materials and the extent to which they can or should regulate the ideological content that reaches their student bodies.