Stefanik Slams Columbia’s New Chief Over Unearthed 2023 Text, Igniting Campus Culture Clash

By: Fern Sidman

Just days into her tenure as acting president of Columbia University, Claire Shipman is already facing intense political scrutiny, ignited by a resurfaced private message she sent in late 2023 that referred to congressional hearings on campus anti-Semitism as “capital hill nonsense.” The comment, first made in a December 2023 text exchange with then-president Nemat Shafik, was included in a transcript published by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, according to a report that appeared on Monday in The New York Times.

Now, that message has returned to the forefront of national controversy, as Representative Elise Stefanik, a powerful Republican voice on education and culture-war issues, launched a highly public attack on Shipman’s credibility and suitability to lead the embattled Ivy League institution.

“It’s already come out that she has criticized and belittled the House investigation and the accountability measures and has failed to protect Jewish students,” Stefanik said during an interview on Fox News’s Sunday Morning Futures, as reported by The New York Times.

Stefanik, whose aggressive interrogation of university leaders during a series of congressional hearings on campus anti-Semitism led to the resignations of Harvard’s Claudine Gay and UPenn’s Liz Magill, predicted that Shipman’s appointment would soon end in the same way.

“It’s untenable for her to be in this position,” Stefanik continued. “I think it is only going to be a matter of weeks before she’s forced to step down as well.”

The remarks in question were never intended for public consumption but were released as part of the House committee’s broader investigation into how elite universities have responded—or failed to respond—to anti-Semitic incidents on campus, especially in the wake of the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel and the subsequent rise in anti-Israel protests across American campuses.

Shipman’s use of the term “capital hill nonsense” appeared in a private December 2023 message to then-president Shafik, expressing skepticism about the legitimacy or seriousness of the congressional scrutiny, according to the information provided in The New York Times report. While supporters may view the comment as a moment of candor amid political pressure, critics see it as evidence of a dismissive attitude toward serious allegations of anti-Semitism.

As the report in The New York Times outlined, Columbia is now navigating a leadership vacuum amid mounting national scrutiny. In the span of just a few months, the university has seen the departure of both Nemat Shafik and Dr. Katrina Armstrong, the interim president who briefly took the reins before stepping down on Friday.

Claire Shipman, a former CNN journalist and trustee with deep institutional ties to Columbia, was tapped to serve as acting president, signaling what many saw as an attempt to stabilize the university during a tumultuous period.

In a letter addressed to the Columbia community on Tuesday, David J. Greenwald, chair of the university’s Board of Trustees, offered a robust endorsement of Shipman’s leadership and institutional knowledge. “She has been deeply involved in every aspect of Columbia’s response to the extraordinary events of the past several years,” Greenwald wrote, according to The New York Times report. “Her knowledge of our mission and priorities is unmatched.”

Notably, Greenwald’s letter did not address Stefanik’s public criticisms or the growing calls from some quarters of Congress for Shipman’s removal.

Representative Stefanik has made campus anti-Semitism a signature issue and continues to use her national platform to pressure elite universities. On X (formerly Twitter), she posted further accusations about Shipman’s alleged behavior during the April 2024 congressional hearings on anti-Semitism, in which Shipman testified alongside then-president Shafik.

According to Stefanik’s post, Shipman was seen “cheering in the back anteroom about how it was going so well for them,” even as a pro-Palestinian encampment was forming on Columbia’s campus lawns that very day, as reported by The New York Times.

In a follow-up post on Saturday, Stefanik referenced the rapid turnover of leadership at Columbia with scathing sarcasm: “Two Presidents later, here we are. They will be onto yet another Columbia President very, very soon after this one. They still don’t get it.”

The Shipman controversy is part of a broader and intensifying debate about how American universities handle anti-Semitism, campus speech, and political polarization. Since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war last fall, campuses have been rocked by waves of student protests, pro-Hamas encampments, and growing concerns from Jewish students and alumni about feeling unsafe or marginalized.

Stefanik and her allies in Congress argue that the nation’s top-tier universities have been slow or unwilling to condemn anti-Semitic rhetoric and have repeatedly failed to provide adequate protection for Jewish students in an increasingly menacing campus environment. Her role in past hearings has led to tangible consequences—including leadership resignations at multiple Ivy League schools, as highlighted in The New York Times report.

Shipman’s defenders, however, suggest that Stefanik’s attacks are politically motivated and ignore the broader complexities of university governance, free expression, and the nuanced nature of campus activism.

In a dramatic escalation of federal scrutiny over anti-Semitism on campus, the U.S. Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism withdrew approximately $400 million in federal research grants from Columbia University on March 7, according to the information in The New York Times report. The move sent shockwaves through the academic world and intensified pressure on the Ivy League institution already struggling to navigate internal unrest, faculty dissent, and growing external criticism over its handling of anti-Semitism and violent pro-Hamas activism.

Just one week later, the task force issued a letter to Columbia outlining nine specific reforms the university would need to commit to before any discussions about restoring the federal funds could begin. Among those demands were increased campus security powers and oversight of academic departments tied to Middle East studies.

What followed was a cascade of events that has left Columbia in a fragile and politically charged state of transition.

On March 21, then-Interim President Dr. Katrina Armstrong formally pledged in writing to the federal government that Columbia would comply with the task force’s requirements. However, within days, The New York Times reported that Armstrong came under fire after it was revealed—through media reports—that she had minimized the scope of the upcoming changes during a private meeting with faculty.

By the end of the month, Columbia’s board of trustees announced that Dr. Armstrong would step down, and in a swift move, the board appointed Claire Shipman, a longtime trustee and co-chair since 2023, as acting president until a permanent replacement is found.

Shipman’s elevation, however, has not calmed the waters. In fact, her past communications have only further fueled controversy. As detailed in The New York Times report, a December 2023 private text message from Shipman to former president Nemat Shafik has resurfaced amid an ongoing investigation by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

In the message, Shipman expressed an interest in engaging the pro-Palestinian movement rather than disciplining it. She specifically floated the idea of “thinking about how to unsuspend the groups”—a reference to Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), both of which had been suspended for repeated violations of university policy.

She also mentioned the potential of collaborating with Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian historian long affiliated with Columbia’s Center for Palestine Studies. Though Khalidi is now retired, the House committee framed Shipman’s suggestion as “working behind the scenes to appease the University’s anti-Semitic actors,” as reported by The New York Times.

The committee’s official report, citing Shipman’s text, bore the emphatic heading:

“FINDING: COLUMBIA’S LEADERS EXPRESSED CONTEMPT FOR CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF CAMPUS ANTISEMITISM.”

Despite the controversy, Columbia has publicly committed to honoring the conditions outlined by the federal task force. As The New York Times reported, Samantha Slater, a spokesperson for the university, confirmed on Monday that Columbia is proceeding with its promised reforms.

These include empowering campus security officers with arrest authority, enhancing oversight of academic departments, particularly those involved in Middle East studies, and sStrengthening university policies to combat anti-Semitism and protect students of all backgrounds.

“We are focused on doing what is right and honoring our commitments to create a Columbia community where students are safe and able to flourish,” Slater said in a statement to The New York Times. “This will secure Columbia’s future.”

The elevation of Claire Shipman as acting president has elicited a mixed response from Columbia’s broad and politically diverse community. While critics, including Rep. Elise Stefanik, have seized upon Shipman’s private comments as disqualifying, others have voiced cautious optimism.

“Ms. Shipman has consistently demonstrated concern for the well-being and needs of [Columbia’s] Jewish community,” wrote Brian Cohen, Executive Director of Columbia/Barnard Hillel, in a social media post cited by The New York Times.

Shipman did not directly address the controversy in her first formal communication as acting president. However, in her letter to the Columbia community, she expressed a clear commitment to following through on the university’s promises to the federal government.

“We will continue to build on the significant progress we’ve made,” Shipman wrote, “and the plan outlined to move our community forward. My request, right now, is that we all—students, faculty, staff, and everyone in this remarkable place—come together and work to protect and support this invaluable repository of knowledge, this home to the next generation of intellectual explorers, and this place of great and continuing promise.”

As The New York Times report emphasized, the stakes for Columbia University are enormous. The loss of $400 million in federal research grants could prove devastating if not reversed. The institution must now strike a delicate balance between meeting the demands of federal oversight, addressing concerns about anti-Semitism, and navigating a polarized student body and faculty with sharply divergent views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The nine conditions outlined by the task force remain the gateway to unlocking further dialogue, and Columbia’s compliance is being monitored closely not only by Washington but by other universities facing similar pressures.

For now, Claire Shipman holds the reins of an institution at a crossroads, burdened with a fraught legacy but also a rare opportunity to model what a thoughtful, principled response to anti-Semitism and campus division might look like.