Antisemitism in Academia > 3 Columbia U. deans fired for childish, antisemitic texts

 

3 Columbia University deans resign after

‘antisemitic tropes’ texts scandal: report

By 

Katherine Donlevy    

Published Aug. 8, 2024  Updated Aug. 8, 2024, 6:27 p.m. ET 

Three Columbia University deans who exchanged “very troubling” texts that “disturbingly touched on ancient antisemitic tropes” are resigning from the elite school, officials said Thursday.

Susan Chang-Kim, Matthew Patashnick and Cristen Kromm — who were permanently removed from their administrative roles last month — will no longer serve at the Ivy League university, a Columbia spokesperson confirmed to The Post.

When the trio submitted their resignations is unclear. Columbia University would not provide additional details surrounding the sudden news, which was first reported by The New York Times.

4

Susan Chang-Kim, Columbia College’s vice dean and chief administrative officer, was among the university brass placed on leave in the wake of the exchange.

Columbia University

4

Matthew Pataschnick, Columbia’s associate dean for student and family support, accused a speaker at a campus antisemitism panel of exploiting the event for its “fundraising potential.”

Columbia College

4

Cristen Kromm, dean of undergraduate student life, sent queasy and vomiting face emojis in the group chat with fellow university leaders in reference to an op-ed written by the campus rabbi decrying the rise of antisemitic sentiment on campus.

Columbia University

Neither Chang-Kim, Patashnick nor Kromm responded to The Post’s request for comment.

The trio was put on indefinite leave in June after it was revealed they were embroiled in a disparaging and sarcastic text chain that unfolded during a panel discussion the month prior about antisemitism on campus stoked by Israel’s war against Hamas.

The thread — which included vomit emojis and accused Jewish students of asserting “privilege” — came to light when pictures an attendee snapped of one of the deans’ phones were circulated by The Washington Free Beacon.

4

Columbia’s campus has been a hotbed of anti-Israel demonstrations since the Jewish state began its retaliatory strike against Hamas after the Oct. 7 terror attack.

Getty Images

“This incident revealed behavior and sentiments that were not only unprofessional, but also, disturbingly touched on ancient antisemitic tropes,” Columbia President Minouche Shafik said in a statement last month.

“Whether intended as such or not, these sentiments are unacceptable and deeply upsetting, conveying a lack of seriousness about the concerns and the experiences of members of our Jewish community that is antithetical to our university’s values and the standards we must uphold in our community.”

It seems Shafik's attitude has improved considerably since Jewish donors have begun withdrawing financial support.

Antisemitism controversy at Columbia University: Key events

• More than 280 anti-Israel demonstrators were cuffed at Columbia and the City of New York campuses overnight in a “massive” NYPD operation.
• One hundred and nine people were nabbed at the Ivy League campus after cops responded to Columbia’s request to help oust a destructive mob that had illegally taken over the Hamilton Hall academic building late Tuesday, NYC Mayor Eric Adams and police said.
• Hizzoner blamed the on-campus chaos on insurgents who have a “history of escalating situations and trying to create chaos” instead of protesting peacefully.
• Columbia’s embattled president Minouche Shafik, who has faced mounting calls to resign for not cracking down sooner, issued a statement Wednesday saying the on-campus violence had “pushed the university to the brink.”
• Columbia University president Minouche Shafik was accused of “gross negligence” while testifying before Congress. Shafik refused to say if the phrase “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is antisemitic.
• More than 100 Columbia professors signed a letter defending students who support the “military action” by Hamas.

Another dean, Josef Sorett, was also involved in the exchange but was allowed to remain in his post after issuing a public apology.

His profile was still listed on the university’s staff directory Thursday, while Chang-Kim, Patashnick and Kromm’s were deleted.

Before their public suspensions, Chang-Kim served as the college’s vice dean and chief administrative officer; Patashnick as the associate dean for student and family support and Kromm as the dean of undergraduate student life.

None were considered faculty members and did not have tenured protections, The Times reported.

Shortly before the trio was permanently removed from their administrative roles last month, more than 2,000 students, alumni and parents signed a petition calling on the school to remove the involved deans.

“This incident exposes a profound issue at Columbia that cannot be dismissed. Failure to address this quickly can only be interpreted as a lack of seriousness and urgency in dealing with campus antisemitism within Columbia’s administration,” the petition stated.

The resignations come as Columbia continues to grapple with protests tied to the ongoing Israel-Hamas war.

Early Thursday, pro-Palestine vandals drew hateful inverted triangle symbols, splattered red paint — and unleashed live crickets and mealworms — across a top Columbia University executive’s Brooklyn apartment building.

No suspects were immediately identified in the incident.

A Confession of Liberal Intolerance

Nicholas Kristof NYTimes


WE progressives believe in diversity, and we want women, blacks, Latinos, gays and Muslims at the table — er, so long as they aren’t conservatives.

Universities are the bedrock of progressive values, but the one kind of diversity that universities disregard is ideological and religious. We’re fine with people who don’t look like us, as long as they think like us.

O.K., that’s a little harsh. But consider George Yancey, a sociologist who is black and evangelical.

“Outside of academia I faced more problems as a black,” he told me. “But inside academia I face more problems as a Christian, and it is not even close.”

I’ve been thinking about this because on Facebook recently I wondered aloud whether universities stigmatize conservatives and undermine intellectual diversity. The scornful reaction from my fellow liberals proved the point.

“Much of the ‘conservative’ worldview consists of ideas that are known empirically to be false,” said Carmi.

“The truth has a liberal slant,” wrote Michelle.

“Why stop there?” asked Steven. “How about we make faculties more diverse by hiring idiots?”

To me, the conversation illuminated primarily liberal arrogance — the implication that conservatives don’t have anything significant to add to the discussion. My Facebook followers have incredible compassion for war victims in South Sudan, for kids who have been trafficked, even for abused chickens, but no obvious empathy for conservative scholars facing discrimination.

The stakes involve not just fairness to conservatives or evangelical Christians, not just whether progressives will be true to their own values, not just the benefits that come from diversity (and diversity of thought is arguably among the most important kinds), but also the quality of education itself. When perspectives are unrepresented in discussions, when some kinds of thinkers aren’t at the table, classrooms become echo chambers rather than sounding boards — and we all lose.

Four studies found that the proportion of professors in the humanities who are Republicans ranges between 6 and 11 percent, and in the social sciences between 7 and 9 percent.

Conservatives can be spotted in the sciences and in economics, but they are virtually an endangered species in fields like anthropology, sociology, history and literature. One study found that only 2 percent of English professors are Republicans (although a large share are independents).

In contrast, some 18 percent of social scientists say they are Marxist. So it’s easier to find a Marxist in some disciplines than a Republican.


George Yancey, a sociology professor, says he has faced many problems in life because he is black, “but inside academia I face more problems as a Christian, and it is not even close.” Credit Nancy Newberry for The New York Times

The scarcity of conservatives seems driven in part by discrimination. One peer-reviewed study found that one-third of social psychologists admitted that if choosing between two equally qualified job candidates, they would be inclined to discriminate against the more conservative candidate.

Yancey, the black sociologist, who now teaches at the University of North Texas, conducted a survey in which up to 30 percent of academics said that they would be less likely to support a job seeker if they knew that the person was a Republican.

The discrimination becomes worse if the applicant is an evangelical Christian. According to Yancey’s study, 59 percent of anthropologists and 53 percent of English professors would be less likely to hire someone they found out was an evangelical.

“Of course there are biases against evangelicals on campuses,” notes Jonathan L. Walton, the Plummer Professor of Christian Morals at Harvard. Walton, a black evangelical, adds that the condescension toward evangelicals echoes the patronizing attitude toward racial minorities: “The same arguments I hear people make about evangelicals sound so familiar to the ways people often describe folk of color, i.e. politically unsophisticated, lacking education, angry, bitter, emotional, poor.”

A study published in The American Journal of Political Science underscored how powerful political bias can be. In an experiment, Democrats and Republicans were asked to choose a scholarship winner from among (fictitious) finalists, with the experiment tweaked so that applicants sometimes included the president of the Democratic or Republican club, while varying the credentials and race of each. Four-fifths of Democrats and Republicans alike chose a student of their own party to win a scholarship, and discrimination against people of the other party was much greater than discrimination based on race.

“I am the equivalent of someone who was gay in Mississippi in 1950,” a conservative professor is quoted as saying in “Passing on the Right,” a new book about right-wing faculty members by Jon A. Shields and Joshua M. Dunn Sr. That’s a metaphor that conservative scholars often use, with talk of remaining in the closet early in one’s career and then “coming out” after receiving tenure.

This bias on campuses creates liberal privilege. A friend is studying for the Law School Admission Test, and the test preparation company she is using offers test-takers a tip: Reading comprehension questions will typically have a liberal slant and a liberal answer.

Some liberals think that right-wingers self-select away from academic paths in part because they are money-grubbers who prefer more lucrative professions. But that doesn’t explain why there are conservative math professors but not many right-wing anthropologists.

It’s also liberal poppycock that there aren’t smart conservatives or evangelicals. Richard Posner is a more-or-less conservative who is the most cited legal scholar of all time. With her experience and intellect, Condoleezza Rice would enhance any political science department. Francis Collins is an evangelical Christian and famed geneticist who has led the Human Genome Project and the National Institutes of Health. And if you’re saying that conservatives may be tolerable, but evangelical Christians aren’t — well, are you really saying you would have discriminated against the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.?

Jonathan Haidt, a centrist social psychologist at New York University, cites data suggesting that the share of conservatives in academia has plunged, and he has started a website, Heterodox Academy, to champion ideological diversity on campuses.

“Universities are unlike other institutions in that they absolutely require that people challenge each other so that the truth can emerge from limited, biased, flawed individuals,” he says. “If they lose intellectual diversity, or if they develop norms of ‘safety’ that trump challenge, they die. And this is what has been happening since the 1990s.”

 Should universities offer affirmative action for conservatives and evangelicals? I don’t think so, partly because surveys find that conservative scholars themselves oppose the idea. But it’s important to have a frank discussion on campuses about ideological diversity. To me, this seems a liberal blind spot.

Universities should be a hubbub of the full range of political perspectives from A to Z, not just from V to Z. So maybe we progressives could take a brief break from attacking the other side and more broadly incorporate values that we supposedly cherish — like diversity — in our own dominions.