The start of Columbia University’s new semester has brought renewed tensions, as anti-Israel demonstrations continue to divide the campus.
On Tuesday, students and activists gathered at the university’s gates, with police drones monitoring overhead. Although the NYPD reported two arrests, the demonstrations were largely described as peaceful.
Cornell Law Professor William Jacobson, president of the Legal Insurrection Foundation, warned that tensions would likely escalate as the one-year anniversary of Hamas’ October 7 attack on southern Israel approaches. According to Jacobson, celebrations planned by protesters for that day could fuel an even greater rise in hostility.
This climate of division has been a defining feature of Columbia’s recent history. Former university president Nemat Shafik resigned last month, citing personal tolls from managing protests. Her decision followed a controversial move to deploy armed police officers on campus to arrest demonstrators who had occupied an academic building. Now, interim president Katrina Armstrong faces the challenge of maintaining order on a campus known for its protests and political activism.
In response to the ongoing unrest, Columbia has tightened security measures. New policies include bans on camping and the installation of more guards and signage across campus. Gates that were once open to the public are now closed, restricting access to students and preregistered guests. The university has also introduced mobile fences that can be used to control areas during protests.
The situation at Columbia has drawn criticism from advocates of free speech. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) recently ranked Columbia second-to-last in its annual College Free Speech Rankings, with many students reporting frequent self-censorship.
According to one student, a “doxxing truck” has been circling campus, displaying the names and photos of students critical of Israel under the label “Antisemite of the Week.” This has led to personal and professional consequences for some, including lost jobs and internship opportunities.
Jacobson pointed out that the activism on campuses like Columbia is often not aimed at fostering debate but rather at intimidating those with differing views. He warned that these kinds of protests stifle free expression, leading to environments where meaningful dialogue becomes nearly impossible.
Interim president Armstrong has responded by reaffirming the university’s commitment to both free speech and a harassment-free environment. She emphasized the need to balance open debate with creating a space where all students feel safe and respected. However, with rising tensions and increasing security measures, finding that balance will likely remain a challenge for Columbia in the months ahead.
