Over 100 Arrested at Columbia After Pro-Palestinian Protest (2024)

Pinned

Here’s what to know about the protests.

The president’s decision swiftly sharpened tensions on campus, which has been battered for months by boisterous pro-Palestinian demonstrations that many Jewish people regarded as antisemitic. And it stood to become a milestone for the country, as campuses have been torn by the Israel-Hamas war and grappled with how to manage protests.

What was far less clear was whether the harsher tactics would form an updated playbook for officials struggling to calm restive campuses, or do little besides infuriate and inflame.

Protesters had already promised that any effort to dismantle the encampment would only embolden them.

Dr. Shafik’s message arrived as swarms of New York City police officers, clad in riot gear and bearing zip ties, marched on the encampment of about 50 tents that had sprung up earlier in the week. On Thursday, protesters clutched Palestinian flags, demonstrators sat huddled on the ground and a thicket of onlookers kept watch as officers bore down on tents in the zone that had styled itself as the “Gaza Solidarity Encampment.”

“Since you have refused to disperse, you will now be placed under arrest for trespassing,” a man repeatedly called through a loudspeaker. The protesters responded with their own repeated cry: “Columbia, Columbia, you will see — Palestine will be free!”

Mayor Eric Adams said on Thursday evening that while Columbia has a “proud history of protest,” students did not “have a right to violate university policies and disrupt learning.”

Less than an hour later, at least two buses were filled with arrested protesters, while other demonstrators thundered their displeasure toward officers. Among those arrested, according to police, was Isra Hirsi, the daughter of Representative Ilhan Omar, Democrat from Minnesota. Ms. Hirsi was issued a summons for trespassing.

“They can threaten us all they want with the police, but at the end of the day, it’s only going to lead to more mobilization,” Maryam Alwan, a senior and pro-Palestinian organizer on campus, had said before the arrests.

Barnard College, across the street from Columbia and so closely linked to the university that the two institutions share dining halls, said it had begun issuing interim suspensions against its students who participated in the encampment.

“Now and always, we prioritize our students’ learning and living in an inclusive environment free from harassment,” Barnard said in its own campus message. “Given the evolving circ*mstances at Columbia and in the area, we are working to ensure the safety and well-being of the entire Barnard community.”

The core of the turmoil, though, was at Columbia.

Etched into Columbia’s history is the brutal police crackdown that its administrators authorized in 1968 against student protesters who were occupying academic buildings. The fallout from the violence tarnished the school’s reputation and led it to adopt reforms in favor of student activism.

Now, the university points proudly to that activism as one of the hallmarks of its culture, and markets it to prospective students. On Thursday, Dr. Shafik insisted that university officials “work hard to balance the rights of students to express political views with the need to protect other students from rhetoric that amounts to harassment and discrimination.”

In recent months, she and administrators across the country have felt that tension acutely, as the federal government opened investigations into the handling of bias claims at dozens of schools, Congress subpoenaed records and court dockets filled with lawsuits.

Columbia, with roughly 5,000 Jewish students and a vibrant strain of support for the Palestinian cause, has drawn particular attention, which led to the appearances by Dr. Shafik and three other Columbia leaders on Capitol Hill on Wednesday.

During her testimony, Dr. Shafik said she had been frustrated “that Columbia’s policies and structures were sometimes unable to meet the moment,” and said the university had updated many of them. Some of those changes include limiting protests to certain times of day and to designated spots on campus.

Columbia’s tightened rules were being tested even as Dr. Shafik testified. By 7:15 p.m. on Wednesday, Columbia said, the university had issued a written warning to students in the encampment: They had 105 minutes to leave or they would face suspension.

Administrators also deployed intermediaries to try to defuse the showdown, only, they said, to have those entreaties rejected.

In a statement before the arrests, Apartheid Divest, a coalition of student groups, said that protesters planned to remain until the university acceded to its demands, including that the university cut its financial ties to Israel. And while Dr. Shafik’s decision drew immediate criticism from the protesters and their allies, others on and around Columbia’s campus had signaled that they would support a crackdown.

“They have guidelines and if they are violating them, I don’t see why this is a special circ*mstance,” said Ami Nelson, a student.

Since the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks on Israel, administrators at Columbia had tried to calibrate their approaches to the demonstrations, balancing free-speech rights with the security of Jewish students.

But before the Republican-led House Committee on Education and the Workforce on Wednesday, Dr. Shafik and other Columbia leaders signaled a tougher approach. The co-chair of the university’s board, Claire Shipman, declared that there was “a moral crisis on our campus.” And Dr. Shafik went so far as to detail some of the disciplinary actions underway, including suspensions and firings.

That conciliatory approach toward House Republicans infuriated many on campus.

In New York, some students and faculty members complained that university leaders had largely kowtowed to a Congress whose insistent questioning helped fuel the recent resignations by the presidents of Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania.

There has been no indication that Dr. Shafik, who took office last July, has lost the confidence of Columbia’s board. Thursday’s tactics, though, showed how much more aggressive she has become in her campaign to quell protests.

Five days after the attack on Israel, hundreds of protesters gathered on the campus, and the university shut its gates — a step that has now become familiar as protests have flared. Weeks later, Columbia suspended a pair of student groups, Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace, in connection with an unauthorized student walkout.

The university rolled out a protest policy in February that was designed to curtail demonstrations, and this month, Dr. Shafik announced suspensions of students who had helped organize an event that included open expressions of support for Hamas.

“This is a challenging moment and these are steps that I deeply regret having to take,” Dr. Shafik wrote on Thursday.

Tents were removed later that day. But within hours, another protest had formed on the lawn and new tents were up.

Reporting was contributed by Olivia Bensimon, Anna Betts, Karla Marie Sanford, Stephanie Saul and Chelsia Rose Marcius

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

The conflict with protesters has been brewing for months. Here’s what led to the school’s decision.

Dr. Shafik’s decision, which followed consultation with the university’s board, came after months of effort to control the protests, which began after the Hamas-led attack on Israel in October.

In January, Columbia and the N.Y.P.D. were investigating reports that pro-Palestinian demonstrators were sprayed with a foul-smelling chemical during a protest, prompting eight people to seek medical treatment. One of the students allegedly involved in the incident, who was suspended, has filed a lawsuit.

By February, the university had placed new restrictions on protests, which required that demonstrators register at least two days in advance, that demonstrations be held within designated areas and that they be restricted to Monday through Friday, from noon to 6 p.m. The idea was to limit the disruption to daily campus life.

One person close to the administration said the rules had been broken multiple times and in a variety of ways, leading up to the decision on Thursday.

Even so, PEN America, a free speech organization, called the decision to arrest students troubling.

“It is disturbing to see a campus move so quickly to arrest students for peacefully expressing their political views within the free speech zone, and it is even more alarming that this action came amidst political pressure to crack down on pro-Palestinian expression on campus after yesterday’s hearing in the House,” the organization said in a statement, referring to a hearing Wednesday in which Dr. Shafik was the star witness.

This month, Dr. Shafik confirmed to the campus newspaper, Columbia Daily Spectator, that four students had been suspended indefinitely and given 24 hours to vacate their campus housing. They had participated in an event called Resistance 101, a discussion that took place in a campus facility, which was deemed out of compliance with university policy.

Dr. Shafik’s decision on Thursday also followed what she said were several attempts to coax the student encampment to vacate their tents, which had been located on the university’s Morningside campus, in a central green near the library.

“The individuals who established the encampment violated a long list of rules and policies,” Dr. Shafik said in her email to the campus.

The university also tried to engage with the students’ concerns, she wrote, but to no avail.

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

Mayor Eric Adams will join Edward A. Caban, the police commissioner, for the 6 p.m. news conference.

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

A protest 56 years ago became an important part of Columbia’s culture.

By April 30, a week after the protest started, university officials cracked down.

At about 2 a.m., police began clearing students from Hamilton Hall “after entering the building through underground tunnels,” according to the student newspaper, The Columbia Daily Spectator. Minutes later, police entered Low Library, again through tunnels, removing occupying students by force.

By 4 a.m., they had cleared all buildings, resulting in more than 700 arrests — one of the largest mass detentions in New York City history — and 148 reports of injuries, the student newspaper reported. Officers trampled protesters, hit them with nightsticks, punched and kicked them and dragged them down stairs, according to a New York Times report.

Most of the injuries were cuts and bruises, relatively minor as compared to some of the brutal arrests of protesters at the height of antiwar and civil rights demonstrations at the time. The university also sustained some property damage, including smashed furniture, toppled shelves and broken windows.

In the end, the protesters won their goals of stopping the construction of a gym on public land in Morningside Park, cutting ties with a Pentagon institute doing research for the Vietnam War and gaining amnesty for demonstrators.

The protests would also lead to the early resignations of Columbia’s president, Grayson L. Kirk, and its provost, David B. Truman.

The fallout from the violence hurt the university’s reputation and led to reforms favoring student activism. Today the university touts its tradition of protest as part of its brand.

On Thursday, another Columbia president, Nemat Shafik, took what she called an “extraordinary step” and authorized the New York Police Department to clear out a student encampment on campus.

Hundreds are still gathered and chanting on the south side of the grass.

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

Outside the school gates on 116th Street, there is still a significant police presence and a group of pro-Palestinian protestors are still chanting.

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

Some colleges are cracking down on student demonstrations.

Unable to continue with the ceremony, university officials cut it short, as hundreds of disappointed students and their parents stood up and walked out.

Two days after the honors convocation, the university’s president, Santa J. Ono, issued a stern rebuke: Enough.

“Like many of you, I am proud of our university’s history of protest,” he said. “But none of us should be proud of what happened on Sunday.” He announced that the school would draft a new policy to redefine what could be punished as disruptive behavior.

The University of Michigan is not alone.

After years of often loose enforcement of their own rules, some of the country’s most high-profile academic institutions are getting bolder, suspending and in some cases expelling students. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, New York University and Brown University have recently taken swift and decisive action against student protesters, including making arrests.

And on Thursday, Columbia University hit its limit with student protesters who had set up dozens of tents on campus, sending in the New York Police Department to make arrests. The arrests followed congressional testimony on Wednesday, in which the president of Columbia, Nemat Shafik, said the school had delivered an unambiguous message to students that misconduct would not be tolerated.

College officials are driven by criticism from alumni, donors and Republican lawmakers, but in interviews they also described a gnawing sense that civility on campus has broken down.

They say that lately, some student protests have become so disruptive that they not only are interfering with their ability to provide an education, but they also have left many students, particularly Jewish ones, fearing for their safety.

Recalibrating isn’t necessarily easy, as many universities are learning. Efforts by administrators to claw back some of their authority over campus demonstrations are being met with pushback from students, faculty and civil liberties groups who say a university’s role is to foster debate — even if it’s messy, rude and disruptive — not attempt to smother it.

Campus activists said the aggressive enforcement of the student disciplinary process by universities is a new and concerning development. “This is an escalation,” said Rosy Fitzgerald of the Institute for Middle East Understanding, a nonprofit that is tracking how schools are responding to student demonstrators.

Suspensions and expulsions “didn’t used to be a tactic,” she said. “But now we’re seeing that as an immediate response.”

In her congressional testimony, Dr. Shafik revealed that 15 Columbia students have been suspended in recent weeks. She also said the school had for the first time in 50 years made the decision to ask the N.Y.P.D. to assist with protests.

Vanderbilt University issued what are believed to be the first student expulsions over protests related to the Israel-Hamas conflict. More than two dozen demonstrators stormed the university president’s office — injuring a security guard and shattering a window — and occupied it for more than 20 hours. Vanderbilt suspended every student involved in the demonstration. Three were expelled.

Student protests have a history of being disruptive and occasionally violent, from the Vietnam War era to today. Since Donald J. Trump’s election in 2016, many campuses have become especially volatile places, seeing an increase in angry demonstrations over conservative speakers, some of whom have been disinvited out of fear for their safety.

The Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel has sparked another wave of protests, which university administrators and free speech advocates say poses new challenges. In interviews, they described encountering students who were unwilling to engage with administrators when invited to do so, quick to use aggressive and sometimes physical forms of expression, and often wore masks to conceal their identities.

“When I talk to my fellow university presidents, everybody has the same experience,” said Daniel Diermeier, the chancellor of Vanderbilt. He said that experience typically involves confrontations with a small group of students, several dozen or so, who are uncompromising.

“They’re not interested in dialogue. When they are invited for dialogue, they do not participate,” Dr. Diermeier said. “They’re interested in protesting, disruption.”

“That’s different,” he added.

At Pomona College in Southern California, seven students were suspended this month after a group of demonstrators forced their way into the president’s office to protest the removal of an “apartheid wall” in support of Palestinians.

School leadership described the incident as part of a troubling pattern in which students wearing masks that covered their faces set up tents on parts of the campus in violation of Pomona policy, harassed staff and visitors on campus tours, and then refused to identify themselves when asked.

It was impossible for college officials to tell whether they were even engaging with actual Pomona students — let alone have an open conversation, said Tracy Arwari, assistant vice president for student affairs at Pomona.

“In the same way we think about anonymity in internet communications, it’s really hard to have an argument if you don’t know who you’re arguing with,” Ms. Arwari said.

But as colleges consider how to rein in the protests, they risk overreaching.

“The last six months have really tested the principles that govern speech on campus,” said Suzanne Nossel, chief executive of PEN America, a writer’s group that focuses on supporting free expression.

On one hand, schools need to have room to set rules. But, Ms. Nossel said, “There is this tension between wanting to enforce the rules and also acknowledging that college is a learning environment. You want people to be able to make mistakes without facing lifelong consequences because if you’re too heavy-handed, it can reinforce this sense of grievance.”

Students who have been subject to tough disciplinary measures have said they found the process disorienting and sudden. At Vanderbilt, the students who were suspended were barred from campus, unable to stay in their dorm rooms, according to Ezri Tyler, a sophom*ore gender studies major who participated in the sit-in at the president’s office.

“Students were panicked and very confused,” Ms. Tyler said, adding that the school’s procedures seemed designed to “very purposely deny students due process.” She said that her suspension was lifted and that she is now on probation for 15 months.

Dr. Diermeier said that the school had to draw a line somewhere. “This has nothing to do with free speech. That’s a red herring,” he said, adding that no one has a right to harass.

But as colleges and universities take a harder line, they are running into resistance from students, faculty and outside civil liberties groups that say they are stifling the very kind of expressive freedom academia purports to cherish.

Michigan’s draft policy on disruptive conduct, for instance, has been criticized by the Michigan chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union as too vague and broad for disallowing activity like impeding the flow of foot traffic on campus and interrupting lectures or performances.

“Of course universities have a legitimate interest in prohibiting the kinds of major disruptions that completely shut down official events or make it physically impossible for speakers to communicate their message,” said Dan Korobkin, legal director of A.C.L.U. Michigan.

“But,” he added, “they cannot demand complete passivity from everyone who sets foot on campus.”

A University of Michigan spokeswoman, Colleen Mastony, said, “Our goal with the draft disruptive activity policy was to make policies clearer, ensure key terms are well defined.”

The university has solicited feedback on the draft, and Dr. Ono said in a recent letter to students and faculty that he would not “rush the development of this new policy; we will ensure all voices have an opportunity to be heard.”

At Vanderbilt, Dr. Diermeier has established an initiative, the Future of Free Speech, to promote free expression beyond college campuses. Jacob Mchangama, the head of that program, said in an interview that he had expressed his differences with Dr. Diermeier over the way the student occupation of the president’s office was handled, including when the police arrested a reporter for a local publication who was covering the event.

But, he added, the willingness of some students to push the limits of tolerable conduct necessitates a response from educators. It’s the job of professors to say, “Here are the red lines,” Mr. Mchangama said. “And that’s one of the issues that’s plaguing universities around the country.”

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

Ilhan Omar’s daughter is suspended for her involvement in the Columbia protests.

Ms. Hirsi posted on social media around 11:30 a.m. on Thursday that she was one of three students suspended so far for participating in the protest, which began on Wednesday, the day the university’s president, Nemat Shafik, appeared before Congress to discuss antisemitism on campus.

At the congressional hearing, Dr. Shafik told lawmakers that she would enforce rules about unauthorized protests and antisemitism. Ms. Omar, who is on the committee that held the hearing and who did not mention that her daughter was among the pro-Palestinian protesters, was one of several Democrats who questioned Ms. Shafik about her actions toward Palestinian and Muslim students.

Ms. Hirsi, 21, said on social media that she was an organizer with Columbia University Apartheid Divest, the student coalition that has been pushing the university to cut ties with companies that support Israel. Such divestment is the key demand of protesters in the encampment. She is also involved with the Columbia chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine, one of two student groups that was suspended in November for holding unauthorized protests.

“I have never been reprimanded or received any disciplinary warnings,” she wrote. “I just received notice that I am 1 of 3 students suspended for standing in solidarity with Palestinians facing a genocide.”

Ms. Hirsi is a junior majoring in sociology. Two other Barnard students, Maryam Iqbal, 18, a freshman, and Soph Dinu, 21, a junior majoring in religion, were also suspended, protest organizers said.

During the congressional hearing on Wednesday, Ms. Omar questioned Dr. Shafik about why pro-Palestinian students on campus had been evicted, suspended, harassed and intimidated for their participation in a pro-Palestinian event. Dr. Shafik responded that it was a very serious situation and that the suspended students had refused to cooperate with an investigation into an event where people spoke in support of Hamas.

Ms. Omar also asked about an alleged chemical attack on pro-Palestinian protesters. Dr. Shafik said that she had reached out to the students who had been attacked, but that the investigation was still with the police. Ms. Hirsi was among the students who was sprayed with an odorous substance, organizers said.

At one point, Ms. Omar asked Dr. Shafik if she had seen any protests at Columbia that were anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, anti-Palestinian or against Jewish people, to which Dr. Shafik responded “no.”

“There has been a rise in targeting and harassment against antiwar protesters,” Ms. Omar said during the hearing, adding, “There has been a recent attack on the democratic rights of students across the country.”

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

A statement from the president of Columbia University.

I took this extraordinary step because these are extraordinary circ*mstances. The individuals who established the encampment violated a long list of rules and policies. Through direct conversations and in writing, the university provided multiple notices of these violations, including a written warning at 7:15 p.m. on Wednesday notifying students who remained in the encampment as of 9:00 p.m. that they would face suspension pending investigation. We also tried through a number of channels to engage with their concerns and offered to continue discussions if they agreed to disperse.

I regret that all of these attempts to resolve the situation were rejected by the students involved. As a result, NYPD officers are now on campus and the process of clearing the encampment is underway.

Protests have a storied history at Columbia and are an essential component of free speech in America and on our campus. We work hard to balance the rights of students to express political views with the need to protect other students from rhetoric that amounts to harassment and discrimination. We updated our protest policy to allow demonstrations on very short notice and in prime locations in the middle of campus while still allowing students to get to class, and labs and libraries to operate. The current encampment violates all of the new policies, severely disrupts campus life, and creates a harassing and intimidating environment for many of our students.

Columbia is committed to academic freedom and to the opportunity for students and faculty to engage in political expression — within established rules and with respect for the safety of all. The policies we have in place around demonstrations are in place to support both the right to expression and the safety and functioning of our university.

Prior to taking this action, I complied with the requirements of Section 444 of the University Statutes.

This is a challenging moment and these are steps that I deeply regret having to take. I encourage us all to show compassion and remember the values of empathy and respect that draw us together as a Columbia community.

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

Here are our takeaways from Wednesday’s antisemitism hearing.

Over more than three hours, the Columbia leaders appeared to avoid the kind of caustic, viral exchange that laid the groundwork for the recent departures of the presidents of Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania, whose own appearances before the same House committee ultimately turned into public relations disasters.

Here are the takeaways from the hearing on Capitol Hill.

With three words, Columbia leaders neutralized the question that tripped up officials from other campuses.

In December, questions about whether calling for the genocide of Jewish people violated university disciplinary policies led the presidents of Harvard, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Pennsylvania to offer caveat-laden, careful answers that ignited fierce criticism.

The topic surfaced early in Wednesday’s hearing about Columbia, and the Columbia witnesses did not hesitate when they answered.

“Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Columbia’s code of conduct?” asked Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Democrat of Oregon.

“Yes, it does,” replied David Greenwald, the co-chair of Columbia’s board of trustees.

“Yes, it does,” Claire Shipman, the board’s other co-chair, said next.

“Yes, it does,” Nemat Shafik, Columbia’s president, followed.

“Yes, it does,” said David Schizer, a longtime Columbia faculty member who is helping to lead a university task force on antisemitism.

To some lawmakers, Columbia’s effort in recent months remains lacking.

Even before the hearing started, Columbia officials have said that its procedures were not up to the task of managing the tumult that has unfolded in the months after the Hamas-led attack on Oct. 7.

In a written submission to the committee, Dr. Shafik, who became Columbia’s president last year, said she was “personally frustrated to find that Columbia’s policies and structures were sometimes unable to meet the moment.”

She added the university’s disciplinary system was far more accustomed to dealing with infractions around matters like alcohol use and academic misconduct. But Columbia officials have lately toughened rules around protests and scrutinized students and faculty members alike.

Some Republican lawmakers pressed the university to take more aggressive action.

Representative Tim Walberg, Republican of Michigan, focused on Joseph Massad, a Columbia professor he accused of glorifying the Oct. 7 attack. Mr. Walberg demanded to know whether Ms. Shipman and Mr. Greenwald would approve tenure for Dr. Massad today.

Both said they would not, prompting Mr. Walberg to retort, “Then why is he still in the classroom?"

In an email on Wednesday, Professor Massad said he had not watched the hearing but had seen some clips. He accused Mr. Walberg of distorting his writing and said it was “unfortunate” that Columbia officials had not defended him.

Professor Massad said it was also “news to me” that he was the subject of a Columbia inquiry, as Dr. Shafik said he was.

Dr. Shafik, who noted that Columbia has about 4,700 faculty members, vowed in the hearing that there would be “consequences” for employees who “make remarks that cross the line in terms of antisemitism.”

So far, Dr. Shafik said, five people have been removed from the classroom or ousted from Columbia in recent months. Dr. Shafik said that Mohamed Abdou, a visiting professor who drew the ire of Representative Elise Stefanik, Republican of New York, “is grading his students’ papers and will never teach at Columbia again.” Dr. Abdou did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Columbia’s strategy before Congress: Signal collaboration, and even give some ground.

Congressional witnesses can use an array of approaches to get through a hearing, from defiance to genuflection. Columbia leaders’ approach on Wednesday tilted toward the latter as they faced a proceeding titled, “Columbia in Crisis: Columbia University’s Response to Antisemitism.”

Ms. Shipman told lawmakers that she was “grateful” for “the spotlight that you are putting on this ancient hatred,” and Mr. Greenwald said the university appreciated “the opportunity to assist the committee in its important effort to examine antisemitism on college campuses.”

But there were moments when university leaders offered more than Washington-ready rhetoric.

When Ms. Stefanik pressed Dr. Shafik to commit to removing Professor Massad from a leadership post, the president inhaled, her hands folded before her on the witness table.

“I think that would be — I think, I would, yes. Let me come back with yes,” Dr. Shafik responded after a few seconds. (After the hearing, a university spokesman said Professor Massad’s term as chair of an academic review panel was already set to end after this semester.)

Representative Kevin Kiley, Republican of California, effectively asked Dr. Shafik to draw a red line for the faculty.

“Would you be willing to make just a statement right now to any members of the faculty at your university that if they engage in antisemitic words or conduct that they should find another place to work?” Mr. Kiley asked.

“I would be happy to make a statement that anyone, any faculty member, at Columbia who behaves in an antisemitic way or in any way a discriminatory way should find somewhere else to go,” Dr. Shafik replied.

Even though the conciliatory tactics regularly mollified lawmakers, they could deepen discontent on campus.

Republicans are already planning another hearing.

The hearing that contributed to the exits of the Harvard and Penn presidents emboldened the Republicans who control the House committee that convened on Wednesday.

Even before the proceeding with Columbia leaders, they had already scheduled a hearing for next month with top officials from the school systems in New York City, Montgomery County, Md., and Berkeley, Calif.

Stephanie Saul and Anemona Hartocollis contributed reporting.

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

Columbia has been host to charged protests over Gaza in recent months.