The COLUMBIA Act Will Do Nothing to Stop Antisemitism on College Campuses
Why should the federal government play a role in combatting bigotry?
Here’s yet another piece of proposed legislation that might “feel” productive, but would only increase the scope of the federal government. Amid widespread anti-Israel protests occurring across the country on college campuses, New York legislators seek to pass a measure ostensibly intended to combat the rise in antisemitism in academia.
In response to the surge of antisemitic incidents on campuses, especially at Columbia University, New York Reps. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) and Mike Lawler (R-NY) have concocted a new piece of legislation: The COLUMBIA Act. The bill aims to install third-party antisemitism monitors at federally funded universities to protect Jewish students, who have often been the subjects of violence and threats coming from the pro-Hamas crowd.
As I stated previously, the measure sounds good. After all, nobody wants to see antisemites targeting Jewish students. However, the proposed bill raises concerns about the implications for academic freedom and free speech.
The COLUMBIA Act, creatively known as the College Oversight and Legal Updates Mandating Bias Investigations and Accountability Act, would mandate a significant shift in how universities handle allegations of antisemitism. Rep. Torres touted the measure, pointing out that “This past week’s crisis at Columbia is not an isolated incident — it is the straw that has broken the camel’s back — and I am prepared to do something about it,” according to the Washington Examiner.
Lawler stressed that the rise of anti-Jewish bigotry on college campuses “is a major concern and we must act to ensure the safety of students.”
“I’m proud to work with my friend and colleague Ritchie Torres on legislation that will impose a third-party antisemitism monitor on college campuses to ensure protections are in place and oversee any troubling action by college administrators. If colleges will not step up to protect their students, Congress must act.”
Despite what the lawmakers’ claim, there are some serious flaws with this approach.
For starters, employing an external monitor to monitor university policies and practices can and will lead to excessive oversight, which could have a chilling effect on academic freedom. In a realm in which debate and critical thinking should be encouraged, it could cause people to self-censor in fear of running afoul of the law.
Yes, there are issues with antisemitism on college campuses. Much of the issue is related to the universities applying their rules regarding speech inconsistently. However, there is a clear risk that students with genuine criticisms of Israel’s government might be labeled as antisemitic.
Indeed, there are some on the right who apply the term “antisemitic” in the same way some on the left use the word “racist.” Any criticism of Israel’s actions amouts to anti-Jewish bigotry to some of these individuals.
Next, there is the financial burden Congress would be placing on these institutions. The bill would require the financial burden for the third-party monitor to be paid by the schools themselves. Torres affirmed this, noting that “the expenses to pay for the monitor would fall on the college or university selected.”
Many of these schools are operating on limited budgets. Requiring them to pay for an antisemitism monitor would only increase this burden.
Lastly, there is the question of efficacy. Would requiring a third party to monitor antisemitism actually address bigotry on campus?
Probably not.
As with most government efforts to fight bigotry, this could make the problem worse. It could actually stigmatize the very group it seeks to protect. After all, Jewish students are not the only ones who face bigotry and discrimination. Right now, they have most of the focus — and understandably so — due to the war in Gaza, which has ignited fiery debates across the country.
But what happens when the furor over Gaza and the Palestinians dies down, as it inevitably will? Will colleges still have to employ monitors to watch out for anti-Jewish bigotry? What about other groups of people? It is not hard to imagine that this level of attention given to one demographic will only breed more resentment.
While it might be appropriate for universities to have rules and standards governing discource on their campuses, adding a federally-mandated monitor to protect one group of people is not the answer. It only grants the federal government more of a role in policing speech in academia.
To put it simply, the COLUMBIA Act is the latest in a series of virtue signaling bills aimed at giving the impression that the government is trying to solve a problem it cannot actually solve. It is similar to hate crime laws in this way.
The best way to address this problem is to allow universities to handle speech on their own. If the federal government wants to withhold funding for schools that aren’t doing enough to address bigotry, then it can do so.
But, in the end, if a school allows rampant antisemitism to flourish on its campuses, this will only push students to attend colleges that do not. The bottom line is that the people will choose whether they are willing to support an institution that allows bigotry or go to a school that actually values inclusivity — which is exactly as it should be.