Columbia Pro-Israel Professor's Campus Access Restricted

0:00

/1861

1×

Facts

• Columbia University on Monday deactivated the identification card of Shai Davidai, an assistant professor at its Business School, in response to his plans to hold a protest on the main Morningside campus.¹
• The Israeli-born Jewish professor had planned to hold a 'peaceful sit-in' in opposition to pro-Palestine demonstrators who have occupied the main lawn to demand Columbia support a cease-fire in Gaza and divest funds in Israel.²
• Columbia Chief Operating Officer Cas Holloway said Davidai was prevented from accessing the West Lawn to 'maintain the safety of the Columbia community' and could organize his event at a counterprotest area.³
• Earlier, the assistant professor rejected the offer to hold a counter-protest in a separate area with the protection of public safety officers, calling it a 'continuation of six months of gaslighting and degrading the Jewish community.'⁴
• Last month, Davidai claimed, without providing details, that Columbia opened an investigation to allegedly silence him for his 'advocacy' for the university's Jewish and Israeli community.⁵
• Tensions at Columbia have been high, with students on both sides filing lawsuits against the school and the US House conducting a probe into antisemitism on campus. All classes on the main Morningside campus will take a hybrid format until the end of the semester.⁶

Sources: ¹Columbia Daily Spectator, ²The Telegraph, ³National Review, ⁴TheTimesofIsrael, ⁵New York Post and ⁶Time.

Narratives

• Narrative A, as provided by Breitbart. Davidai is being punished for calling out Columbia's policies, which tend to favor support for the Palestinians and do little to address rampant campus antisemitism. Limiting his ability to counter-protest — while allowing the pro-Palestinian protesters to construct a tent city — is a clear violation of Davidai's rights.
• Narrative B, as provided by Columbia Daily Spectator. Davidai isn't banned from campus — he's being restricted from certain areas for his own safety. By harassing students for their political views, he violated university policies, abused his power, and posed a threat to the university community, attempting to ignite post-Oct. 7 campus tensions. He was rightly restricted from the type of protest he was planning.

Predictions