Columbia Looks to Give Campus Police Arresting Power After Protests
University President Shafik proposes plan, while trustees and faculty battle over what school should do after last year’s disruption
Months after protests rocked Columbia University’s campus, President Minouche Shafik is proposing additional muscle for the school’s security force, including new authority to arrest protesters.
In a proposal currently under discussion among administrators, the school would add “peace officers” to its security personnel, according to people briefed on the proposal. Columbia currently has about 290 campus security personnel.
The people say it is still in early stages but could lead to peace officers with the authority to arrest and physically contact a student; current campus officers can do neither except under exceptional circumstances including self-defense. The cost, quantity of officers and even uniforms are under debate, as is whether Shafik needs approval from faculty or the university’s board.
The administration says it will seek input from faculty before implementation.
“We seek to strengthen the department’s skills and training in de-escalation techniques, expanding the department’s ability to manage a range of incidents while taking into account the fact Columbia does not have its own police force, as many peer institutions have, and potentially reducing our reliance on the NYPD,” said Columbia spokesperson Ben Chang.
Pro-Palestinian protests and other confrontations over the Israel-Hamas war have disrupted classes and derailed careers on American campuses since last fall. Universities have spent much of the summer tightening security protocols and refining codes of student discipline in hopes of avoiding conflict between students.
Columbia’s Manhattan campus was home to some of the most disruptive protests. Shafik, who became president in July 2023, called the New York Police Department to break up an encampment and again to intervene after protesters occupied an administrative building. Officers arrested dozens of protesters.
Her decision was met with near-instant condemnation from some faculty who passed a resolution of no confidence in her in May.
Since then, school leaders have largely been in limbo, unable to agree on whether to enact stricter rules governing student conduct and speech. A sizable minority of faculty has pushed back against many proposals for harsher rules, prioritizing tolerance of free speech and political dissent over the prevention of demonstrations on campus, according to people familiar with the discussions.
The school’s board of trustees is eager to avoid a free-for-all when students return to campus in a few weeks, some of those trustees said. Some said they are losing faith in President Shafik.
Plans for more police with greater powers at Columbia raises uncomfortable associations with 1968, when New York City police roughed up protesters on campus in an attempt to quell demonstrations. Faculty afterward took more control over rules for student conduct, discipline and enforcement.
Today, campus security personnel are prohibited from touching or detaining a student. If protests get out of hand, administrators are obligated to check in with faculty leaders before calling in city police.
“There’s no middle ground, it’s either do nothing and let the protesters do whatever they want, or call the NYPD,” said Prof. James Applegate, a member of the executive committee of the university senate, who thinks the idea of a more proactive security force has merit.
Turning point
The struggle to beef up campus security at Columbia is emblematic of universities’ slow pace of change. But rising anxieties over another chaotic fall are putting pressure on college leaders to act.
Conditions in the Middle East that spurred last semester’s protests have intensified. The turbulent U.S. presidential campaign is likewise stoking partisan divides.
Yet any proposal for harsher tactics has been met with resistance from certain members of Columbia’s faculty, some of whom are among the most politically progressive academics in the nation. Professors there laid the foundation for postcolonial studies, which are at the root of the current protests. Many take seriously the defense of free speech.
Columbia, like most universities, is governed through a power-sharing agreement between administrators and faculty.
Columbia’s faculty senate helps set rules for student conduct and discipline. A far-left wing of professors in the senate has pushed to slow disciplinary action against student protesters, according to trustees and faculty.
Administrators fear that some faculty might strike if tighter security measures are put in place, according to some of the trustees. Other faculty members and trustees are arguing for more decisive action to prevent antisemitic harassment on campus and disruption to learning.
Alumni and donors have also voiced their anger to Columbia’s leaders about last semester’s campus disruptions and the perception little is being done to prevent a refrain. A decline in the number of alumni donors has sparked concern the school will have to increase its drawdown of its $14 billion endowment to fund operating revenue.
At the top
Shafik, an economist who was previously director of the London School of Economics, sits at the center of the divide between a group of faculty and trustees. She is charged with navigating a path forward.
In her first year, she faced student encampments, the occupation of an administrative building and aggressive congressional questioning about antisemitism on campus.
After graduation, when a pause seemed at hand, three deans were caught on text message deriding student concerns about antisemitism. “Amazing what $$$$ can do,” read one message.
Prof. James Valentini, a former dean of Columbia College and vice president for undergraduate education, said Shafik has offered no vision of the university’s core values in this moment of crisis.
“We’re very muddled as an institution right now,” Valentini said. “It does not appear that our leader knows what to do.”
Shafik has spent the summer meeting with scores of faculty, alumni and trustees and trying to bridge the divide, according to her spokesman.
She laid out her vision last December. In a July 24 letter to the community, she said that it is “grounded in efforts to renew our commitment to one another. We must redouble our efforts in that direction, applying the many critical lessons of last year—some painful, but all useful—in our work for the fall.”
Protesters themselves have helped some faculty understand the challenge ahead. At an alumni event earlier this summer protesters left a sign that read: “We’re Back Bitches.”