As I write, Columbia University remains closed to the public, a couple of hours after the NYPD came in at the request of the president, Nemat (“Minouche”) Shafik, and arrested busloads of anti-Israel student protestors who had been camped out in front of the main library. Because they refused to disperse, despite being informed numerous times that they were trespassing, they now face potentially serious consequences.

All this is happening just one day after Shafik and three other Columbians—a professor of law and the co-chairs of the board of trustees—appeared in Washington before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce to answer questions about anti-Semitism on campus. This is, of course, the same committee whose grilling of the presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT in December contributed substantially to the quick resignations of the first two. Reviews of Shafik’s performance have been mixed, but she unquestionably learned from the mistakes of those who came before her and did not come across as a bureaucratic robot. Also, she did have one unforgettable line, about the spelling of the word “folx.”

The optics of police in riot gear on campus is not good, but it’s hard to see what other choices were open to a new president who wishes to make clear to the world that Columbia is a serious academic institution rather than a finishing school for progressive babies. (“Finishing,” as in: they wish to finish off the school rather than let the school polish them; “progressive,” as in: they wish to impede progress rather than promote it.)

After all, Columbia finds itself in an interesting position. It should be able to capitalize on the chaos at such peer institutions as Penn and, especially, Harvard by setting itself apart and making itself more appealing to top students and faculty. But the matter is not so simple: Shafik was summoned to Washington precisely because anti-Semitism has been rampant at Columbia as well.

Considered one of America’s best institutions of higher education (currently ranked #5 by the Wall Street Journal and tied for #12 in “national universities” according to U.S. News & World Report), Columbia is in regular competition for students and faculty with such other universities as Harvard (#6 and tied for #3, respectively) and Penn (#7 and #6). This competition works on multiple levels, however: In what I have referred to as “whiplash,” the latest FIRE Free Speech Rankings put Penn and Harvard at the very bottom rather than near the top—they are ranked dead last (respectively #247 and #248 of 248)—while Columbia is only (!) the 214th-worst, which turns out to be a considerable improvement over a year earlier, when it was deemed the worst of the worst (#203 of 203).

So, Shafik has her work cut out for her. I’d like her to succeed. Restoring civility on campus while protecting free speech is not an easy business, and she is going to make mistakes. Still, it’s nice that someone at the top has decided to take a brave—and to some highly unpopular—stand and state clearly that certain forms of conduct cross the line. (On conduct vs. speech, and with occasional reference to Columbia, an article by Ilya Shapiro from November remains indispensable.) To quote Wilfred McClay in an AEI report issued on April 17th,

in any moral dilemma that involves making a difficult choice between two goods, the gravity of the current crisis of civic ignorance outweighs the maintenance of the academic status quo. We are in a crisis, and the time for complacency is long past.

McClay is talking about “civic ignorance,” which is not exactly the same thing as the extraordinary outbursts of anti-Semitism that have been a deeply depressing feature of so many campuses across America since October. But civic ignorance and anti-Semitism are related, and more leaders should heed McClay’s wise words.

If Shafik’s administration continues to take a tough stand while being careful not to punish what is actually protected speech, Columbia will, I predict, quickly attract better undergraduate folks—ones who wish to learn and are willing to argue with civility about contentious issues—while seeming inhospitable to many who shouldn’t be there in the first place. One immediate problem with evaluating my prediction is that, just before Shafik took over last year, Columbia went “test-optional.” This is unfortunate: Tests such as the SAT are a good predictor of academic success. But since four of the eight Ivies—first Dartmouth and most recently Harvard—have in the last few months decided to reinstate the requirement that college applicants submit standardized test scores, we may hope that Shafik will decide that the embarrassment of a quick volte-face is not enough to stop Columbia from doing the right thing here as well.

The post Columbia’s Once and Future Folx appeared first on American Enterprise Institute – AEI.