Cowardice and Hypocrisy at Columbia
The administration at Columbia University has once again demonstrated its craven capitulation to the forces of intolerance and oppression. As pro-Palestinian protesters on campus have been met with arrests and accusations of threatening Jewish students, the two individuals who allegedly assaulted these protesters with a noxious chemical weapon have faced no meaningful consequences.
Let us be clear — the use of “skunk water”, a foul-smelling liquid developed by the Israeli military as a crowd control tactic, against peaceful demonstrators is an abhorrent act of violence. This chemical agent, which causes nausea, burning eyes, and other distressing symptoms, has been widely condemned as a form of collective punishment used by the Israeli occupation forces against Palestinian civilians.
Yet at Columbia, where administrators were all too eager to crack down on student groups like Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace for the supposed crime of voicing criticism of Israel’s actions, the perpetrators of this chemical attack have faced no such repercussions. Instead, the university has taken the cowardly path of simply banning the alleged assailants from campus, without even the basic step of handing them over to law enforcement for a proper investigation.
This is the height of hypocrisy. Columbia claims to uphold the values of free speech and academic freedom, yet it has repeatedly shown that these principles only apply when the views expressed align with the pro-Israel orthodoxy favored by the university’s wealthy donors. The suspension of SJP and JVP, and the failure to swiftly and forcefully condemn the skunk water attack, make a mockery of these lofty ideals.
One is left to wonder — what exactly do the powers that be at Columbia find so threatening about students peacefully protesting the ongoing human rights abuses in Gaza? Is the mere act of voicing solidarity with the Palestinian people so anathema to the sensibilities of the administration and its backers?
What they fear most, above anything, is that public opinion in the USA will flip.
When attitudes toward apartheid changed in the USA, it culminated in sanctions in 1986.
Five years later, Nelson Mandela was free and apartheid had ended.