By: Tzirel Rosenblatt – Jewish Voice News

Columbia University has formally declined to divest from Israel or from corporations alleged by anti-Zionist campus activists to be supplying materials to the Israeli military, issuing a detailed rebuke of proposals that the university says reduce one of the world’s most complex geopolitical conflicts to slogans, distortions, and dangerously broad accusations. As reported on Monday by The Algemeiner, Columbia’s decision underscores the institution’s increasingly assertive effort to confront the wave of antisemitism and anti-Israel agitation that continues to reshape its campus climate.

The university’s Advisory Committee on Socially Responsible Investing (ACSRI) published its position on Friday, responding to three divestment proposals submitted in December 2024. These proposals were advanced during a period when Columbia’s campus was engulfed in anti-Israel demonstrations, encampments, and a cascade of antisemitic incidents in the weeks surrounding the first anniversary of Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre in southern Israel.

The activists behind the divestment effort accused Israel of committing “human rights violations” and “war crimes,” framing their demands as a moral imperative. As The Algemeiner report noted, the proposals relied heavily on language popularized by anti-Zionist movements on campuses across the country, particularly those aligned with Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP).

Columbia’s response, however, was categorical. In three separate statements, the university rejected the notion that the anti-Israel faction represented any broad or meaningful campus consensus. The ACSRI wrote that the proposals relied on “vague and excessively broad” characterizations, failing to meet the rigorous standards of clarity and intellectual precision that should guide university decision-making.

The committee emphasized that the activists’ demands distilled a multifaceted geopolitical landscape into ideologically driven binaries, thereby sowing “partisan division and confusion” rather than contributing to thoughtful, evidence-based civic dialogue — a view echoed by numerous faculty members who corresponded with The Algemeiner in recent months.

Beyond the lack of consensus, ACSRI pointed out that the proposals bore striking similarities to those previously issued by Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), a spinoff organization associated with Students for Justice in Palestine. CUAD is widely viewed as responsible for some of the most volatile anti-Israel actions on campus, many of which, as The Algemeiner report  documented, aligned directly with national efforts by SJP chapters to disrupt campus life through unsanctioned demonstrations, building occupations, and rhetoric crossing into explicit antisemitism.

Columbia formally barred itself from recognizing or corresponding with CUAD, citing the group’s role in orchestrating antisemitic harassment, property damage, and intimidation campaigns against Jewish students and faculty. The university’s latest statements made clear that the new proposals were not meaningfully distinguishable from what ACSRI previously described as CUAD’s “substantively flawed” demands.

“As noted in the ASCRI’s decision on the CUAD proposal last year, members of the university have a wide range of views on contentious issues,” the committee reiterated. “Hence, it will be difficult or unprecedented for the university, with such diverse views, to sponsor shareholder proposals of the kind this proposal envisages.”

Furthermore, the committee stressed that “significant opposition” exists across Columbia’s community — among students, faculty, alumni, and administrators — to the idea of divesting from companies associated with Israel or its defense industries. This widespread objection, ACSRI said, fundamentally undermines any claim that the divestment movement reflects the will of the Columbia community.

As The Algemeiner report indicated, throughout the recent conflict in Gaza, Israel has stated that it undertook extraordinary measures to minimize civilian casualties, including mass evacuation orders, targeted warnings through text messages and leaflets, and delays in airstrikes to give civilians time to move to safer zones. Israel also emphasized that Hamas embedded its operatives within civilian areas, exploited hospitals, schools, and religious sites, and used its own population as shields — a pattern verified by significant evidence documented by multiple international observers.

Columbia’s statement did not litigate these claims directly but noted that the student group’s proposals failed to account for the fundamental asymmetry of the conflict or the complexities inherent in determining moral responsibility within active war zones.

The university’s refusal to divest comes as Columbia continues to overhaul its internal structures to address antisemitism — reforms undertaken after months of intense scrutiny from federal officials, media outlets, alumni, students, and Jewish organizations.

In July, Columbia’s new president, Claire Shipman, announced an extensive plan to address antisemitic harassment and discrimination on campus. The reforms, described in The Algemeiner report as among the most significant undertaken by any Ivy League institution, included the appointment of new civil rights coordinators to manage discrimination claims, the creation of mandatory antisemitism education programs for faculty, students, and staff, and the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism.

The IHRA definition has become an essential tool for identifying anti-Jewish hate in academic settings, and its adoption at Columbia was lauded by Jewish groups as a major step toward accountability. Shipman also forged new partnerships with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and other Jewish organizations and issued a sweeping ban on university recognition of or engagement with CUAD.

In her July statement, Shipman acknowledged that such measures were only the beginning. “Antisemitism at this institution has existed, perhaps less overtly, for a long while,” she said. “The work of dismantling it, especially through education and understanding, will take time. It will likely require more reform. But I’m hopeful that in doing this work, we will start to promote healing and to chart our path forward.”

Columbia University became a national focal point in the debate over campus antisemitism in the year following Hamas’s October 7 atrocities. According to the information provided in The Algemeiner report, the university saw numerous instances of students celebrating the massacre, threatening Jewish classmates, or expressing extremist rhetoric.

One widely reported episode involved a student publicly asserting that Zionist Jews “deserve to be murdered” and were “lucky” he was not committing such violence himself. Other incidents involved faculty members who participated in group chats sharing antisemitic tropes portraying Jews as privileged, conspiratorial, or unworthy of communal protection.

The university’s difficulties in containing CUAD’s increasingly aggressive behavior culminated in a shocking act of infrastructural sabotage in January, when CUAD operatives intentionally flooded the toilets of the Columbia School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) with concrete, causing extensive damage, as was reported by The Algemeiner.

Investigations later revealed that the plot may have originated months earlier at an event hosted by Alpha Delta Phi (ADP), a literary society, where materials were distributed for “aspiring revolutionaries” and presentations included step-by-step instructions for the kind of sabotage later carried out at Columbia.

In the aftermath of these incidents, Columbia agreed to pay more than $200 million to settle claims that the university had exposed Jewish students, faculty, and staff to harassment and discrimination in violation of federal civil-rights protections. The settlement released over $1 billion that had been frozen by the Trump administration to pressure Columbia to take decisive action against antisemitism.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon McMahon heralded Columbia’s reforms as a turning point not only for the institution but for American higher education more broadly. “Columbia’s reforms are a roadmap for elite universities that wish to retain the confidence of the American public,” she said, noting that the changes reaffirm the institution’s commitment to “truth-seeking, merit, and civil debate.”

With its rejection of the divestment proposals, Columbia signaled that it will not endorse demands framed by groups whose actions have led to fragmentation, intimidation, and intense polarization on campus. The university instead emphasized its responsibility to balance passionate student activism with institutional integrity, academic rigor, and the safety and rights of all members of its community — responsibilities that, as The Algemeiner report observed, have been severely tested over the past year.

Columbia’s leadership has made clear that it views the anti-Israel divestment movement — and the groups behind it — not as a principled human-rights campaign but as a source of profound campus disorder and antisemitic hostility. By reaffirming its refusal to meet with CUAD and rejecting proposals rooted in the group’s agenda, the university has drawn a firm boundary around what it considers acceptable protest within an academic environment.

At the same time, Columbia insists that its work is far from over. Shipman continues to emphasize the need for education, dialogue, and structural change to address the deeper cultural currents that enabled the past year’s surge in antisemitism.

As The Algemeiner report said, Columbia University’s decisions in the coming months — on disciplinary measures, new educational initiatives, and enforcement of civil-rights policies — will play a defining role in shaping the national debate over antisemitism in higher education.

And for now, Columbia has delivered a clear message: it will not divest from Israel, and it will not allow anti-Zionist extremism to dictate its investment policy, its institutional values, or the safety of its Jewish community.