A Columbia University professor publicly condemned the school’s settlement fund tied to antisemitism, accusing administrators of monetizing the issue for political gain. In an open letter, James Schamus questions whether compensation is limited to Jewish employees and calls out what he calls a cynical system.
The controversy follows Columbia’s recent agreement with the Trump administration to settle civil rights complaints at the cost of over $200 million and restore hundreds of millions in federal funding. As part of the deal, Columbia formally adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism under pressure from federal officials.
Schamus, a professor in the Film and Media Arts department, sarcastically asks: “Where can I sign up for my share of those Crazy Columbia Antisemitism Cash Dollars?” He further writes: “The more you go all‑out weaponizing antisemitism in the context of Israel’s mass murder spree, the more Columbia $$$ you earn.”
According to Columbia’s spokesperson, the EEOC settlement fund applies to employees who experienced harassment or discrimination based on religion, race, ethnicity or national origin since October 7, 2023. Other Title VII claims filed during that timeframe are also eligible.
Schamus’s letter is the latest criticism of Columbia’s reform package. Critics claim the school’s changes—such as adopting the IHRA definition and increased oversight—threaten academic freedom and suppress pro‑Palestinian viewpoints.
Notable scholars including Marianne Hirsch and Rashid Khalidi have voiced concerns. Hirsch, a genocide scholar, fears dropping criticism of Israel may be deemed antisemitic. Khalidi cancelled his fall course, condemning the university for siding with federal pressure over open inquiry.
The term “weaponization of antisemitism” refers to exploiting claims of antisemitism to silence dissent. Observers say Columbia’s approach illustrates this tactic, especially given its disciplinary actions against student protesters and faculty critics.
Columbia faces mounting pressure from federal and academic stakeholders. Whether campus reforms restore integrity or erode free discourse remains unresolved.
