By: Fern Sidman

The House Education and the Workforce Committee has opened a fresh and intensifying line of inquiry into Columbia University, citing newly revealed internal communications that appear to downplay, and even delegitimize, concerns over antisemitism on campus. As The New York Post reported on Tuesday, Republican lawmakers are zeroing in on a series of messages sent by then-Columbia trustee—and now interim president—Claire Shipman, which they argue reflect a troubling disregard for Jewish student safety during a period of acute unrest at the Ivy League institution.

The investigation, led by Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) and Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), comes amid a nationwide surge in anti-Israel demonstrations and antisemitic incidents on college campuses, with Columbia seen by many as ground zero in the cultural and political battle over free speech, hate speech, and institutional accountability.

In a scathing letter sent to the university on Tuesday, Walberg and Stefanik demanded a formal response from President Shipman regarding her internal communications that appeared to characterize Jewish fears of antisemitism as “not necessarily rational.” The letter, reviewed by The New York Post, also questioned the legality of a separate message urging that a new board member of Middle Eastern or Arabic descent be appointed quickly—an action the Committee claims could violate federal civil rights law.

At the center of the controversy is an October 30, 2023 WhatsApp message, in which Shipman—then a trustee—described Jewish students and families as “frustrated and scared about antisemitism,” but went on to say that this fear was “not necessarily a rational feeling.”

“Which is not necessarily a rational feeling but it’s deep and it is quite threatening,” Shipman wrote to then-president Minouche Shafik. “People feel somehow betrayed by it.”

This message, taken in the context of violent anti-Israel demonstrations, was described by lawmakers as “perplexing,” especially given the documented violence and harassment against Jewish and Israeli students at Columbia in the weeks leading up to the correspondence. The university, The New York Post report recalled, had already faced multiple allegations of physical intimidation, exclusionary student groups, and deeply hostile protest rhetoric by that point.

🚨JUST ANNOUNCED: U.S. Department of Education Notifies Columbia University’s Accreditor of Columbia’s Title VI Violation

Columbia NO LONGER meets national standards for being accredited. They were found to have violated federal Civil Rights law. FAFO!

We the People love… pic.twitter.com/dGNcS9pTwr

— AJ Huber (@Huberton) June 4, 2025

“Your description—that people feel ‘somehow’ betrayed and that this is ‘not necessarily a rational feeling’—is perplexing, considering the violence and harassment against Jewish and Israeli students already occurring on Columbia’s campus at the time,” the Committee’s letter read.

Further complicating matters is a January 17, 2024 message in which Shipman allegedly urged that someone of Middle Eastern or Arabic descent be added to the university’s board “quickly.” Walberg and Stefanik argued that such a suggestion—if acted upon—could constitute a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on national origin in institutions receiving federal funds.

“If Columbia were to act on this suggestion and appoint someone to the board specifically because of their national origin, it would implicate Title VI concerns,” the lawmakers stated, pointing out that such prioritization raises “troubling questions” about the university’s internal values, especially in the aftermath of the October 7 Hamas massacre, the deadliest attack against Jews since the Holocaust.

In response to mounting pressure, a university spokesperson told The New York Post that the messages are being “shared out of context,” and that they reflected a “particularly difficult moment” when leaders were attempting to deescalate tensions amid growing chaos on campus.

“Columbia is deeply committed to combating antisemitism and working with the federal government on this very serious issue,” the university said in its official statement to The Post. “Acting President Claire Shipman has been vocally and visibly committed to eradicating antisemitism on campus.”

The university also confirmed its continued cooperation with the Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, and emphasized recent reforms aimed at creating a “safe and welcoming environment for all community members.”

Yet those assurances have done little to calm the backlash.

The Columbia Jewish Alumni Association, in a separate statement to The New York Post, has called for Shipman’s immediate resignation, citing her “lack of empathy” and “deliberate isolation” of other board members.

“Her statements are extremely offensive and unacceptable,” the group declared. “They cannot be explained by ‘taken out of context.’ She is not fit to serve in the office of president of Columbia University.”

The new federal probe is only the latest chapter in a tumultuous year for Columbia. The university has struggled to recover from being thrust into the national spotlight as the epicenter of anti-Israel student activism and spiraling campus unrest.

As The New York Post reported at the time, Columbia was forced into lockdown after violent encampments led to widespread property destruction and dozens of arrests. Most notably, masked agitators stormed Hamilton Hall, shattering windows and barricading themselves inside in what many likened to a “savage takeover.” That incident alone, The Post noted, triggered an unprecedented response from the federal government.

In March, the Trump administration pulled roughly $400 million in federal grants and contracts from the university, citing its failure to prevent escalating antisemitism and enforce basic campus order.

Interim President Shipman, who stepped into the role in March 2024 following Shafik’s resignation, responded by implementing a sweeping series of policy changes demanded by the Trump administration: banning face coverings during protests, empowering campus police to arrest or expel students deemed to be threatening, and requiring demonstrators to identify themselves or face disciplinary action.

Despite these corrective measures, many view Shipman’s prior messages as emblematic of a deeper institutional failure—one that not only failed to protect Jewish students but also enabled a culture of ideological bias and reactive governance.

As Congress now probes Columbia’s internal communications and policy choices, the stakes for the university could not be higher. The investigation may help shape future legislation on university accountability, particularly regarding Title VI compliance, discrimination in trustee appointments, and campus protest regulation.

Whether Columbia’s leadership can weather this latest storm remains uncertain.

With federal oversight intensifying and internal criticism mounting, Columbia now finds itself at the intersection of cultural conflict, civil rights law, and the future of higher education governance in the United States.