Columbia University’s Radical Faculty and Protests Trigger Congressional Scrutiny

Note: Our V24 undercover investigative series into American higher education has uncovered disturbing levels of antisemitism and radicalization at Columbia University, facilitated by certain faculty members. These revelations have sparked Congressional action, emphasizing the need for universities to ensure safety, open dialogue, and accountability in confronting extremist ideologies on campus.

Columbia University Under Fire in Antisemitism Hearing

A recent U.S. Congressional hearing on antisemitism shone a spotlight on Columbia University, illuminating a campus climate riddled with anti-Israel sentiment, extremist rhetoric, and academic bias. According to testimonies and undercover investigations by V24, the Ivy League institution—historically known for its intellectual rigor—has become, in the words of some committee members, “a platform for those supporting terrorism and violence against the Jewish people.”

This hearing followed months of unrest at Columbia, where radical activists, both students and certain faculty members, have fostered an environment laced with hostility toward Israel. The situation reached a point where the U.S. House Committee on Education examined the university’s leadership and policies. Columbia University President Minouche Shafik testified, defending the principle of teaching students “how to think, not what to think.” Yet, the V24 investigative footage and other documented incidents highlighted glaring contradictions.

Professors Advocating Extremism and Anti-Western Ideologies

The committee’s review included mention of specific faculty hires, notably Mohamed Abdou, described as an “anarchist interdisciplinary activist-scholar.” Recordings indicate that Abdou, a Visiting Professor in Modern Arab Studies, openly supports Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad. On October 11, just days after the Hamas-led massacre of Israeli civilians, Abdou posted online: “Yes, I’m with Hamas.” He extolled the power of “a thousand warriors” to “upend the entire world,” alluding approvingly to terrorist tactics.

Representatives were alarmed by the university’s decision to bring in such figures after these deadly attacks. They questioned what measures, if any, were taken to hold faculty accountable for statements endorsing violence against civilians. The committee highlighted Columbia’s alleged failure to curb faculty who either deny or minimize Hamas atrocities, or stigmatize Jewish and Israeli students as threats. One noted professor was said to have disparaged Israeli students who served in the IDF, labeling them as dangerous and implying they shouldn’t be on campus.

A Culture of Antisemitic Protest and Misinformation

Students chanting “Brick by brick, wall by wall, Israel will fall” and “From the River to the Sea” have underscored the normalization of anti-Israel sentiment. The committee learned that many of these protests may not even be driven primarily by Columbia’s own student body, as outsiders seem to use the campus as a staging ground for radical rhetoric. Some protesters are seen calling for destruction and disruptions not just in Israel, but in Western societies as well.

The congressional session also tackled the distribution of false claims. Rep. Ilhan Omar repeated allegations from unnamed professors that Israeli students had attacked anti-Israel demonstrators with “Israeli Army chemical weapons.” In truth, these so-called “chemical weapons” turned out to be a noxious but harmless “fart spray” called “Liquid Ass,” available on Amazon for about $26. The revelation of such outlandish distortions illustrated how misinformation has penetrated campus dialogues, fueling more vitriol and confusion.

University’s Response and Congressional Concern

President Shafik insisted that Columbia aims to foster vigorous debate and civilized disagreement. However, under the glare of congressional scrutiny and after months of anti-Israel hostility, skepticism runs high. Investigations revealed that Columbia’s much-touted “Antisemitism Task Force” was panned by Rashid Khalidi, a longtime professor and former PLO spokesperson. Khalidi dismissed the task force’s composition as a collection of “bigots, fanatics, right-wingers, and extremists” in reference to their perceived pro-Israel leanings. Such internal disparagement of attempts to address antisemitism only deepens concerns about the campus climate.

The committee demanded clarity on what disciplinary actions, if any, were taken against faculty endorsing terror or labeling Jewish/Israeli students as dangerous. The administration’s responses were viewed as evasive. Evidence that some high-profile professors who stoke anti-Israel sentiments continue teaching without consequence is alarming. The congressmen also expressed disappointment in the university’s inability to protect Jewish students who now face not only verbal hostility but also the threat of physical violence, with arrests of aggressors becoming more common.

A Moment of Reckoning

The congressional hearing served as a public reckoning for one of America’s prestigious academic institutions. Columbia’s image as a bastion of open-minded inquiry suffers as extremism, denial of atrocities, and conspiratorial thinking take root, driving away reasoned discourse.

As more details come to light through V24 Investigations and other watchdog groups, Columbia and similar universities may be forced to reassess their tolerance for educators and students who endorse terror, distort historical facts, and perpetuate anti-Semitic hostility. The hope among committee members and concerned observers is that this accountability moment will prompt meaningful reforms, ensuring that intellectual freedom does not become a shield for hate and misinformation.

Matthew Tyrmand

Head of V24 Investigations