The Review: On Columbia administrators' unfortunate text messages

More evidence of a campus double standard? ADVERTISEMENT [The Review Logo]( You can also [read this newsletter on the web](. Or, if you no longer want to receive this newsletter, [unsubscribe](. As Eliana Johnson and Aaron Sibarium first [reported]( in The Washington Free Beacon, several Columbia University administrators attending an alumni-reunion panel in May on Jewish campus life privately disparaged the panelists — casting doubt on their claims about rising campus antisemitism, expressing distaste for their rhetoric, and maligning their goals — over a series of surreptitiously photographed text messages. The panelists were David Schizer, co-chair of Columbia’s antisemitism task force; Brian Cohen, executive director of the Kraft Center for Jewish Life; Ian Rottenberg, dean of religious life; and Rebecca Massel, an undergraduate reporter for the Columbia Daily Spectator. The administrators were Josef Sorett, dean of Columbia College, as well as several top officials responsible for student life: Susan Chang-Kim, Cristen Kromm, and Matthew Patashnick. All except Sorett have been [placed on leave](. What should be made of all this? The participants in the group chat were engaging in a very common activity: back-channel kvetching about institutional diversity initiatives, often felt to be incoherent, arbitrary, and clumsily imposed. Publicly expressed skepticism about such initiatives is costly — pious affirmation is the prescribed attitude — so dissent circulates sub rosa. Patashnick’s mockery of Cohen — “not all heroes wear capes” — is a typical articulation of private impatience with public sanctimony. The fact that the targets, in this case, were speaking on behalf of Jews does not, by itself, make the criticism antisemitic. SUBSCRIBE TO THE CHRONICLE Enjoying the newsletter? [Subscribe today]( for unlimited access to essential news, analysis, and advice. But here’s where things get tricky. None of the administrators, at least in the text messages so far released, appeared to be categorically or generally skeptical of identitarian harm claims, which have been ubiquitous on campus for many years now. In fact, they seemed to think that such claims were dubious — “from such a place of privilege,” as Chang-Kim said — only when coming from Jews. Chang-Kim’s remark was in [response]( to Patashnick’s prediction that Jewish students “will have their own dorm soon.” The notion that Jews were getting more than anyone else was made explicit by Kromm: “If only every identity category had these resources and support.” In fact, as Sibarium [pointed out]( Jews are conspicuously absent from the list of groups that receive specialized resources at Columbia. Those resources include identity-based dorms — called “[Special Interest Communities]( — such as Casa Latina, “a safe and accessible space for Latinx communities and allies”; Muslim Student House, “a safe space where the Muslim community can thrive on campus”; and Black Residential, “a safe space created by and for Black students and leaders to advance, advocate for, and support the Black community while fostering fellowship.” It is against this background of general concern for the emotional and social safety of minority groups that Sorett and company’s indifference to the panelists’ anxieties seemed so discordant. On its own, there’s nothing really wrong with the group-texting administrators’ casting a jaundiced eye at the panelists at the Jewish-life event — if only there were evidence that they were similarly critical about any other group’s complaints. Indeed, campuses might be better off if intelligent skepticism toward claims of harm were less stigmatized, welcomed as loyal criticism rather than condemned as uncaring and even discriminatory. Such a culture might generate less behind-the-scenes snark, and more honest public conversation. At any rate, no organization would be able to function if all of its members’ private communications were made public. But now that we’ve seen those texts, we can’t unsee them, and they tend to corroborate what critics of campus culture have been saying for the last eight months or so: The current diversity regime suffers from a double standard when it comes to Jews. The Columbia administrators who, between them, are most responsible for student life were not critical of identity-based harm claims in general; they were critical of them only in this case. One solution might be more skepticism all around. ADVERTISEMENT UPCOMING PROGRAM [The Chronicle's Library and Institutional Success Program | July 2024] The Chronicle is partnering with Ithaka S+R to host a brand new [professional development program for librarians]( in July. This innovative two-week program will help library leaders understand the many roles they might take on, boost the success of the campus library, and better align with their institution’s goals. Learn more about our seminars and workshops, and [register today]( The Latest THE REVIEW | ESSAY [How Higher Ed Can Adapt to the Challenges of AI]( By Joseph E. Aoun [STORY IMAGE]( The future is here. Now is the time to make sense of it. ADVERTISEMENT [How Higher Ed Can Adapt to the Challenges of AI]( THE REVIEW | ESSAY [Why Are There So Few Conservative Professors?]( By Steven M. Teles [STORY IMAGE]( The facts are beyond dispute. The causes and solutions are not. THE REVIEW | ESSAY [Michel Foucault, the Bogeyman of the Culture Wars]( By Caleb Smith [STORY IMAGE]( Forty years after the famed theorist’s death, his work continues to disturb. Recommended - “At any given time, an infinite number of laws are not enacted. The question of why they are not enacted is an incoherent question.” In the Los Angeles Review of Books, Andrew Koppelman [writes about]( problems with some versions of originalism, by way of a review of Jack M. Balkin’s Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation. - “His easy confidence in the objective authority of his preferences might seem presumptuous. But turn the perspective around, and poetry reviewers in our day seem strikingly mild and undiscriminating.” In The Yale Review, Langdon Hammer [recalls]( Thom Gunn’s career as a critic. - “There is something disarming about Slotkin’s optimism that a new national myth can help to provide a solution to our current divisions.” In the London Review of Books, Eric Foner [reviews]( Richard Slotkin’s A Great Disorder: National Myth and the Battle for America. - “Under common law, all those declared purus idiota (a quasi-medical category ruled on by a jury) belonged to the king, who could bestow them and their property on any party able to make a strong enough case to claim them.” Also in the London Review of Books, Clare Bucknell [writes about]( fools, by way Peter K. Andersson’s Fool: In Search of Henry VIII’s Closest Man. Write to me at len.gutkin@chronicle.com. Yours, Len Gutkin FROM THE CHRONICLE STORE [Adapting to AI - The Chronicle Store]( [Adapting to AI]( Artificial intelligence has taken higher ed by storm, and the implications extend far beyond the classroom. [Order this report]( to improve your understanding of AI technologies, and explore how other colleges are adapting their policies and guidelines. JOB OPPORTUNITIES [Search jobs on The Chronicle job board]( [Find Your Next Role Today]( Whether you are actively or passively searching for your next career opportunity, The Chronicle is here to support you throughout your job search. Get started now by [exploring 30,000+ openings]( or [signing up for job alerts](. NEWSLETTER FEEDBACK [Please let us know what you thought of today's newsletter in this three-question survey](. This newsletter was sent to {EMAIL}. [Read this newsletter on the web](. [Manage]( your newsletter preferences, [stop receiving]( this email, or [view]( our privacy policy. © 2024 [The Chronicle of Higher Education]( 1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037