The Academic Expulsion
Columbia University President Minouche Shafik announced on May 4 the immediate suspension of 47 Jewish students and faculty members following a three-week investigation into what the administration termed "systematic violations of university anti-discrimination policies." The suspensions came after sustained pressure from the Students for Justice in Palestine coalition, which occupied Butler Library for 18 days demanding the removal of individuals they identified as "active participants in Zionist colonialism." According to Shafik's statement, the suspended individuals had engaged in "coordinated harassment of Palestinian students and advocacy for policies that violate Columbia's commitment to inclusive education."
The investigation was triggered by an April 15 incident in which Jewish students organized a memorial service for October 7th victims on the university quad, which counter-protesters disrupted with chants calling attendees "genocidal colonizers." Video footage obtained by the New York Post on April 16 showed masked students surrounding Jewish attendees while chanting "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." The confrontation escalated when Jewish students attempted to continue their memorial, leading to physical altercations that required campus security intervention. Following the incident, the SJP coalition submitted a 47-page dossier to the administration documenting social media posts, academic work, and public statements by Jewish students and faculty that they characterized as "hate speech promoting ethnic cleansing."
The suspensions include tenure-track faculty members from the Middle East Institute and School of International Affairs, along with undergraduate and graduate students from across departments. Suspended professor David Hirsch told the Wall Street Journal on May 5 that he was targeted for assigning readings that included Israeli perspectives on the conflict. "My crime was teaching both sides of a complex issue," Hirsch stated. "The administration has capitulated to ideological pressure that demands academic conformity." Graduate student Rachel Cohen, also suspended, reported that her offense was sharing an article about Hamas's use of human shields in a graduate seminar discussion.
The decision has triggered federal intervention from the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, which announced on May 5 that it would investigate potential violations of Title VI anti-discrimination protections. Representative Elise Stefanik called for congressional hearings on May 5, stating that Columbia had created "a hostile environment for Jewish students unprecedented in American higher education." The American Association of University Professors condemned the suspensions on May 6 as "a fundamental violation of academic freedom that sets a dangerous precedent for ideological policing on campus."
China, June 1966: When Red Guards Shut Down Universities in the Name of Ideological Purity
On June 1, 1966, Beijing University student Nie Yuanzi posted a wall poster attacking the university administration as "bourgeois academic authorities" who were "taking the capitalist road." Within days, Red Guard units began forming across Chinese universities, demanding the expulsion of professors, administrators, and students deemed ideologically impure. By August 1966, universities had effectively ceased normal operations as Red Guards conducted "struggle sessions" against faculty and students accused of harboring "rightist" or "revisionist" thoughts. The targets included anyone who had studied abroad, taught Western subjects, or failed to demonstrate sufficient revolutionary zeal.
The Cultural Revolution's assault on higher education was systematic and comprehensive. At Peking University, President Lu Ping was paraded through campus wearing a dunce cap while students forced him to confess his "crimes against the people." Professor Liang Shuming, a renowned philosopher, was denounced for promoting "feudal thinking" through his scholarship on traditional Chinese culture. Students searched dormitories and offices for "evidence" of counter-revolutionary activity, including Western books, personal letters, and academic papers that failed to cite Mao adequately. The accused were forced into self-criticism sessions where they had to confess their ideological failures and denounce their own work.
The intellectual purge targeted specific categories of people based on their backgrounds and associations. "Black categories" included former landlords, rich peasants, counter-revolutionaries, bad elements, and rightists—but also anyone who maintained connections to these groups or had studied their ideas academically. Faculty who had trained in Western universities were automatically suspect, as were those who taught subjects like literature, philosophy, or history that could be interpreted as promoting "bourgeois" values. Students from "bad class backgrounds" found themselves expelled regardless of their academic performance or political behavior.
The campaign's logic was that universities had become breeding grounds for counter-revolutionary thought that threatened the socialist system. Mao's directive on May 7, 1966, declared that "the domination of our schools by bourgeois intellectuals should by no means be allowed to continue." Red Guards interpreted this as a mandate to eliminate anyone whose presence might contaminate the ideological purity of higher education. Universities were closed for months while new curricula emphasizing revolutionary politics replaced traditional academic subjects. The academic system didn't fully recover until the 1970s, creating a lost generation of scholars and students.
Where the Pattern Holds — and Where It Breaks
- Student activists pressure administrators to remove faculty and students based on ideological criteria rather than academic misconduct or professional competence.
- Accusations focus on identity and political associations rather than specific behaviors: Red Guards targeted "class enemies," Columbia activists target "Zionist colonizers."
- Administrative capitulation to activist demands despite violation of institutional norms around due process and academic freedom.
- Documentation of ideological impurity through surveillance of social media, academic work, and private communications to build cases against targets.
- Collective punishment of groups based on political identity rather than individual actions, creating atmosphere of fear among similar populations.
- Justification of expulsions as protecting marginalized groups from "harm" caused by the mere presence of ideological opponents.
- Columbia's actions are limited to one institution and face immediate federal investigation, while Red Guard purges were state-sponsored and nationwide.
- Suspended Columbia members retain legal protections and can challenge decisions through courts, unlike Cultural Revolution victims who faced state violence.
- American academic tenure system and faculty unions provide institutional resistance that didn't exist in Mao's China.
- Columbia's actions target a religious/ethnic minority rather than a political class, changing the legal and moral frameworks for evaluation.
How Strong Is This Echo?
The structural logic is similar: student activists successfully pressure institutions to expel members based on ideological rather than behavioral criteria. The use of documentation, group targeting, and administrative capitulation matches closely. However, the American legal system and institutional protections create significant differences in scale and consequences.
This represents a concerning institutional parallel where activist pressure successfully overrides academic norms. The pattern of ideological purging through documentation and group targeting is structurally similar to Cultural Revolution tactics, though American legal protections limit the scale and severity. The willingness of administrators to abandon due process for ideological conformity marks a significant institutional shift.
The Blind Spots of 1966
Western observers in 1966 focused on the dramatic spectacle of Red Guards parading professors in dunce caps while missing the systematic institutional capture that made such scenes possible. The real story wasn't student radicalism but administrative cowardice—university leaders who abandoned their institutional responsibilities to appease activist pressure. Western coverage emphasized the chaos and violence while underestimating how quickly normal institutional processes could be dismantled when administrators prioritized political survival over institutional integrity.
The deeper pattern that went unrecognized was how ideological movements exploit bureaucratic risk aversion. Chinese university administrators didn't believe in Maoist extremism, but they feared being labeled counter-revolutionary more than they valued academic freedom. The safest position was aggressive compliance with activist demands, even when those demands violated institutional norms. This dynamic created a ratchet effect where each concession to activist pressure established a new baseline for acceptable behavior, making subsequent demands appear moderate by comparison.
Most critically, observers failed to understand how documentation and surveillance techniques could transform ideological conformity from aspiration to enforceable requirement. Red Guards didn't just denounce general categories of "bourgeois thinking"—they compiled specific evidence of ideological deviation from personal letters, classroom comments, and social interactions. This created an environment where self-censorship became insufficient protection; survival required active demonstration of ideological purity. The process transformed universities from institutions of inquiry into sites of performance.
The long-term institutional damage was underestimated because observers focused on individual victims rather than system-level changes. The Cultural Revolution didn't just remove particular professors—it established new norms around what kinds of scholarship, teaching, and intellectual inquiry were acceptable. Even after the most extreme violence ended, Chinese universities operated under the assumption that ideological considerations trumped academic ones. The institutional memory of capitulation outlasted the specific political moment that created it.
Three Paths from Here
Federal investigation and legal challenges force Columbia to partially reverse the suspensions while maintaining face-saving measures. Some faculty are quietly reinstated while students face lesser sanctions like academic probation. The administration implements new "dialogue and reconciliation" procedures that preserve the precedent of ideological scrutiny while appearing to restore due process.
Columbia announces reinstatement of at least 25 of the 47 suspended individuals within 30 days, citing "procedural improvements" or "additional context" rather than admitting error. Deadline: June 5, 2026.
Other elite universities follow Columbia's model, conducting their own investigations of Jewish students and faculty based on political activities. The logic of "community standards" enforcement spreads beyond Palestinian activism to other ideological causes. Universities develop systematic processes for monitoring and sanctioning politically disfavored speech and associations.
At least two other major universities announce formal investigations or suspensions of students/faculty based on political identity or activism within 45 days. Harvard, Yale, NYU, or Berkeley are most likely candidates. Deadline: June 20, 2026.
The Department of Education determines that Columbia has created a discriminatory environment and withdraws federal funding. This triggers a crisis across higher education as other institutions face similar investigations. Congressional Republicans use the precedent to threaten funding for universities that demonstrate ideological bias in disciplinary actions.
Department of Education announces suspension or withdrawal of federal funding to Columbia within 60 days, or Congress passes legislation explicitly conditioning university funding on anti-discrimination compliance. Deadline: July 5, 2026.
The Number That Matters
Between 1966 and 1968, approximately 1,728 university professors were expelled, imprisoned, or died during China's Cultural Revolution purges of higher education. The campaign closed 43 major universities and created a lost generation of scholars. Columbia's suspension of 47 individuals represents a proportionally similar targeting of 3% of its faculty and student body based on ideological criteria rather than academic misconduct.
From the Archive
"The domination of our schools by bourgeois intellectuals should by no means be allowed to continue."
May 7, 1966, three weeks before the Cultural Revolution began