Connect with us

World

Columbia University leaders face scrutiny over anti-Semitism on campus

Published

on

Columbia University leaders face scrutiny over anti-Semitism on campus

Leaders from Columbia University have appeared before a committee in the United States Congress to face questions about alleged instances of anti-Semitism on campus.

The hearing was a sequel of sorts to a similar panel held in December, featuring the presidents of Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

But on Wednesday, Columbia University President Nemat “Minouche” Shafik sought to avoid the same pitfalls that made the previous hearing go viral.

She pledged firm action to combat anti-Semitism, even engaging in discussions about specific Columbia professors and disciplinary measures during the hearing.

“We have already suspended 15 students from Columbia. We have six on disciplinary probation,” Shafik said, laying out her actions before the Committee on Education and the Workforce, part of the House of Representatives.

Advertisement

“These are more disciplinary actions that have been taken probably in the last decade at Columbia. And I promise you, from the messages I’m hearing from students, they are getting the message that violations of our policies will have consequences.”

Still, Republicans on the committee sought to hold Columbia University to account for what they considered failures since the start of the war in Gaza on October 7.

On that date, the Palestinian group Hamas attacked southern Israel, killing upwards of 1,000 people. In the subsequent war, Israeli attacks in Gaza killed more than 33,800 Palestinians, prompting widespread protest.

Like many college campuses, Columbia University has been a centre for student activism in the months since, with demonstrators rallying both in support of the war and against it.

But the university has drawn particular scrutiny, given its prominence as a prestigious Ivy League school and its attempts to crack down on unauthorised gatherings.

Advertisement

Some critics have argued that the suspension of pro-Palestinian students and groups has put a damper on free speech on campus, while others allege the administration has allowed a hostile atmosphere to thrive.

The president of Columbia University, Nemat Shafik, speaks before the House Education and the Workforce Committee on April 17 [Ken Cedeno/Reuters]

Partisan divide over campus activity

Committee chair Virginia Foxx opened Wednesday’s hearing with a statement championing the view that campus administrators have failed to create a safe learning environment for Jewish students.

She pointed to pro-Palestinian activism as evidence that Columbia and other campuses “have erupted into hotbeds of anti-Semitism and hate”.

“Columbia stands guilty of gross negligence at best — and at worst has become a platform for those supporting terrorism and violence against the Jewish people,” she said in prepared remarks.

Her statement referenced an incident on October 11 when an Israeli student was allegedly beaten with a stick while hanging posters of the captives taken by Hamas.

Advertisement

But at several points during the hearing, representatives took to the microphone to point out that anti-Semitism was part of a wider problem of discrimination and hate in the US.

“Anti-Semitism is not the only form of hatred rising in our schools. It’s not the only form of hatred that is impacting our children’s or students’ ability to learn,” Representative Teresa Leger Fernandez, a Democrat, said from her seat on the committee.

“Islamophobia and hate crimes against LGBTQ students have also recently spiked. They’ve led to deaths by suicide, harassment. But this committee has not held a single hearing on these issues.”

Meanwhile, Representative Ilhan Omar, a prominent progressive voice in the House, sought to dispel any conflation of antiwar protests with anti-Jewish hate.

“Have you seen a protest saying, ‘We are against Jewish people’?” Omar asked Columbia President Shafik, who answered, “No.”

Advertisement

Omar continued by highlighting the case of pro-Palestinian students being sprayed with a foul-smelling chemical at Columbia and being “harassed and intimidated” in other instances.

“There has been a recent attack on the democratic rights of students across the country,” she said.

Virginia Foxx speaks from the podium at a congressional hearing.
Committee Chair Virginia Foxx led the hearing called ‘Columbia in Crisis: Columbia University’s Response to Antisemitism’ on April 17 [Jose Luis Magana/AP Photo]

Controversy looms over hearing

Shafik sought to walk a fine line during the hearing, pledging swift and decisive action against anti-Semitism while underscoring her campus’s commitment to free speech.

She was joined by Claire Shipman and David Greenwald, from Columbia’s board of trustees, as well as David Schizer, a member of the campus task force against anti-Semitism.

But looming over the proceedings was the spectre of December’s hearing, which led to the resignations of two university presidents.

On December 5, Claudine Gay of Harvard, Liz Magill of the University of Pennsylvania and Sally Kornbluth of MIT faced the same committee for questions about anti-Semitism on their campuses.

Advertisement

During the meeting, Republican Representative Elise Stefanik pressed the university presidents to explain — with simple, yes-or-no answers — whether “calling for the genocide of Jews” would violate their campus codes of conduct.

In each case, the university presidents sought to differentiate between protected speech and harassment, leading to convoluted answers.

“If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment, yes,” Magill said. She later added: “It is a context-dependent decision, Congresswoman.”

Clips of the hearing went viral shortly thereafter, with politicians on both sides of the aisle slamming the university presidents for failing to make a forceful denunciation of anti-Semitism and genocide.

Magill resigned four days after the hearing, as the public outrage grew. Gay — Harvard’s first Black president — also stepped down in January, facing pressure not only over the hearing but also over questions of plagiarism.

Advertisement

Those events cast a shadow over Wednesday’s panel, and several representatives made direct references to them.

Republican Representative Aaron Bean, for instance, applauded Columbia’s administrators for giving more forthright answers than their counterparts at Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania.

“Y’all have done something that they weren’t able to do: You’ve been able to condemn anti-Semitism without using the phrase, ‘It depends on the context,’” he said.

“But the problem is: Action on campus doesn’t match your rhetoric today.”

A standard approach to hate

On Wednesday, Shafik and the Columbia administrators were also pressed over many of the same issues as their colleagues from Harvard, MIT and the University of Pennsylvania.

Advertisement

Republicans on the committee asked them to weigh in on chants like, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”. While some consider the chant anti-Semitic, others see it simply as a call for Palestinian statehood.

“I have received letters from our Jewish faculty who say they also don’t think it is anti-Semitic,” Shafik said at one point during the hearing.

But she also explained that she personally felt that language was “incredibly hurtful”.

One recommendation she said the campus was considering would create specific spaces for that kind of protest.

“If you are going to chant, it should only be in a certain place, so people who don’t want to hear it are protected from having to hear it,” Shafik said, relaying the idea.

Advertisement

Schizer, meanwhile, indicated that he advocated for a standard approach to hate and harassment, no matter who was being targeted.

“I’m a conservative. I’m close to many conservative students. There have been times they’ve gotten the signal that they should really go slow on a particular event or not articulate a particular position because it makes others feel uncomfortable,” Schizer said.

“And it’s striking how that kind of language has not been applied to Jewish students. When Jewish students have said, ‘We feel uncomfortable,’ the emphasis has been: ‘No, no, no, free speech.’”

“Now I want to be clear: I think free speech is essential, but I also think consistency is essential. We need to have the same approach for everyone.”

Elise Stefanik speaks during a congressional hearing.
Representative Elise Stefanik pressed Columbia University’s president over her hiring practices [Jose Luis Magana/AP Photo]

Professors under fire

Some of the fiercest criticism, however, ultimately fell to Columbia professors who were not present at the hearing.

Committee members cited statements from professors like Joseph Massad, Mohamed Abdou and Katherine Franke as evidence of bias and discrimination among the Columbia faculty.

Advertisement

“We have 4,700 faculty at Columbia, most of whom spend all of their time dedicated to teaching their students,” Shafik said at one point, as she defended her hiring practices.

“I have five cases at the moment who have either been taken out of the classroom or dismissed.”

In the case of Abdou, a visiting professor, Stefanik confronted Shafik with a post he wrote on social media on October 11, saying he was “with Hamas”.

“He will never work at Columbia again,” Shafik responded. “He has been terminated. And not just terminated, but his files will show that he will never work at Columbia again.”

Massad, meanwhile, came under fire for an article he wrote in the publication Electronic Antifada, describing the October 7 attack as an act of “innovative Palestinian resistance”.

Advertisement

“Mr Massad is under investigation,” Shafik said, adding that she believed the professor had been removed from a leadership role within the university.

World

Paramount+ Sets Tulisa Docuseries About Shamed ‘X Factor’ Judge From Dorothy Street Pictures

Published

on

Paramount+ Sets Tulisa Docuseries About Shamed ‘X Factor’ Judge From Dorothy Street Pictures

Paramount+ has commissioned a docuseries about shamed “X Factor” judge Tulsa from Dorothy Street Pictures, the producers behind Victoria Beckham doc “Victoria” and Pamela Anderson doc “Pamela: A Love Story.”

Tentatively titled “Tulisa: The Reckoning,” the unscripted series will follow the former pop star and talent show judge as she reflects on her journey, from her humble beginnings to soaring success as the frontwoman for the band N-Dubz, her pivot to “X Factor” judge and the scandal that saw her career come crashing down.

In 2013 an undercover U.K. tabloid journalist nicknamed the “Fake Sheikh” tricked the singer into “setting up a cocaine deal” which saw her arrested and charged. The trial collapsed after the journalist was found to have tampered with evidence (he was later convicted of perverting the course of justice).
Tulisa later revealed she had been entrapped by the journalist, who claimed he could bag her a role in a movie worth £3.5 million.

Although she was never convicted, Tulisa lost endorsements and jobs, including the “X Factor” gig and effectively disappeared from public life.

Advertisement

As well as telling her story, the three-part docuseries will follow the singer’s campaign for media regulation.

“This isn’t just a story of survival, it’s a reckoning,” reads the synopsis for the docuseries. “After years of reflection, Tulisa is ready to confront and change the system that once brought her down.”

Tulisa says of the project: “For years, so much has been said about me, but not always by me. This series is about taking back control of my story and speaking openly about everything I’ve been through, not just for myself, but for anyone who’s had similar experiences in the media spotlight.”

“Tulisa: The Reckoning” (working title) is set to land on Paramount+ in 2026.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

World

Trump gets major win against China in African rare earth minerals race

Published

on

Trump gets major win against China in African rare earth minerals race

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

JOHANNESBURG — In what’s being hailed as a major win for the Trump administration against Chinese domination of the rare earth minerals market, the U.S. has supported an American company, Virtus Minerals, in developing two major mines producing cobalt and copper in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

This is claimed to be the first U.S. rare earth minerals acquisition in the African nation since President Donald Trump announced the Washington Accord last December.

Historically, China has been the heavy lifter of these metals. The Strategic Studies Institute reported that 80% of the world’s cobalt is produced in the DRC — and 80% of that is controlled by China. Cobalt, used in a wide range of applications, from electric cars and mobile phones to military jets, is on the U.S. government’s list of critical minerals. Copper, also on the list, has traditional uses such as piping for plumbing, but is also needed in electronics and the automotive industry.

President Donald Trump attends a signing ceremony with Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame and Democratic Republic of Congo President Felix-Antoine Tshisekedi at the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace in Washington on Dec. 4, 2025. (Evan Vucci/AP)

Advertisement

During December’s signing at the White House, Trump made clear the administration’s fight to curb Chinese domination of minerals and help American mining companies make a major impact in the DRC. “A great day for Africa, a great day for the world,” Trump said.  The accord also aims to bring an end to fighting between the DRC and Rwandan-backed forces, although the Rwandan-supported M23 rebel group have continued their hostile infiltration in the Eastern DRC.

American mining company Virtus is, with U.S. support, claiming to be “the first U.S.-owned operator back in the DRC in more than a decade”, with its investment in Chemaf, a local cobalt and copper producer with two mining operations, one, Étoile, in Lubumbashi and Mutoshi, in Kolwezi. Together it’s planned the mines will produce a combined 75,000 tonnes of copper, and 20,000 tonnes of cobalt a year. The processing plants are currently under development and will come online next year.

Virtus Minerals CEO and Chamaf Chairman. Phillip Braun, the Chargé d’Affaires U.S. Embassy Kinshasa Ian J. McCary, and Chemaf Managing Director Sooryanarayanan Prabhakaran cutting the ribbon of the new mine. (Virtus Minerals / Chemaf)

The minerals will ultimately be exported to the west through the Lobito Corridor to a port in Angola. Lobito is the rail route the U.S. has backed with a $5 billion investment commitment, with, according to a Virtus statement, “the aim of obtaining a secure, auditable copper and cobalt supply chain for the U.S. and its allies.”

THE WEST STILL DOESN’T GRASP THE DANGER OF CHINA’S RARE EARTH ENDGAME

Advertisement

Frans Cronje, president of the Washington-based Yorktown Foundation for Freedom, says the Virtus projects are significant because they show the administration is seriously trying to change the balance in a minerals battle with China.

He told Fox News Digital, “This development signals a more assertive United States effort to compete with China for access to Africa’s critical mineral base, particularly in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where cobalt and copper are strategically vital to global energy and defense supply chains.”

The U.S. and DRC flags fly outside Chemaf’s site in Kolwezi, Democratic Republic of the Congo. (Virtus Minerals / Chemaf)

Cronje added, “China has built deep structural dominance across much of Africa’s resource sector over the past two decades, but U.S.-backed initiatives such as this suggest a shift towards more direct engagement, rather than relying on Chinese-controlled supply routes. This matters because Africa’s vast resource endowment, combined with its geostrategic position along key Atlantic and Indian Ocean corridors, makes it central to future global economic and security competition.”

A State Department spokesperson told Fox News Digital, “President Trump and Secretary Rubio remain firmly committed to supporting U.S. companies that seek to do business in the DRC.”

Advertisement

AFRICAN WAR-TORN NATION INVOKES TRUMP ‘GOLDEN AGE’ FOR MINERALS DEAL IN EXCHANGE FOR BOOTING VIOLENT REBELS

Chemaf’s site in Kolwezi, Democratic Republic of the Congo. (Virtus Minerals / Chemaf)

“The United States government fully supports the efforts of Virtus Minerals,” the spokesperson continued. “This acquisition serves as an initial flagship U.S. investment in the DRC, and sends a clear signal that the U.S. private sector interest is real and will catalyze further investment in alignment with the U.S.-DRC Strategic Partnership Agreement, which positions the DRC to play an integral role in the Trump Administration’s global efforts to secure critical mineral supply chains.”

The spokesperson added that “increased U.S. investment will create quality jobs for American and Congolese workers, foster skills development and support local communities that have long been exploited by the opaque systems constructed and perpetuated by adversarial foreign actors who have controlled the DRC’s critical minerals sector.”

Cobalt and Copper mined from Chemaf’s Etoile site in Lubumbashi, DRC. (Virtus Minerals / Chemaf)

Advertisement

Virtus holds 56 mining licenses in total in the DRC. Phillip Braun, Virtus Minerals CEO and Chemaf chairman, told Fox News Digital, “Our first goal is to bring the Étoile and Mutoshi plants up to full production. From there, we will explore everything Chemaf’s 56 mining permits have to offer — copper, cobalt and other metals like tungsten.”

“None of this would be possible,” Braun added, “without the strong partnership now growing between the United States and the DRC, and the support of leaders in both countries who saw what was possible. We look forward to bringing our two nations closer by building a steady, trusted supply of the minerals we depend on and supporting other American companies that want to invest in the DRC any way we can.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“A more active U.S. presence in these supply chains,” Cronje continued, “would mark a significant rebalancing of influence on the continent, with implications not only for resource access but for broader geopolitical alignment in regions that are becoming increasingly contested.”

Fox News Digital reached out to the DRC government for comment, but did not receive a response.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

World

What the US and Iran agreed – and disagreed – on first day of talks

Published

on

What the US and Iran agreed – and disagreed – on first day of talks

The United States has waived sanctions on Iranian oil for 60 days following the first day of talks for a peace deal, with US President Donald Trump saying he will “do what I have to do” if Iran does not stick to its side of the agreement. Direct talks between the US and Iran were triggered by the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the two sides last week.

The parties have also established “a communication line” regarding the Strait of Hormuz to “avoid incidents and miscommunication with the aim of safe passage for commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz”. Iran closed the strait, through which 20 percent of the world’s oil and natural gas is shipped in peacetime, after US-Israeli attacks began at the end of February. This caused shockwaves through global energy markets, and the price of oil spiked.

A joint statement released by mediators Qatar and Pakistan on Monday said: “Chief negotiators will report regularly to the High Level Committee and lead working groups focused on nuclear, sanctions, and a monitoring and dispute resolution group to ensure the effective implementation of the MoU, and on other matters.”

But, besides sanctions relief, the two sides appear to disagree on what else they had agreed on.

On Tuesday, Iranian state media reported that the US had also agreed to release $12bn of frozen Iranian assets, but Washington has not confirmed this. And, while US Vice President JD Vance stated on Monday that Iran would allow international nuclear inspectors back into the country, Iran denied this on Tuesday.

Advertisement

Several other major sticking points to a peace deal have yet to be negotiated, including the fate of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile and the specifics of the sanctions relief.

In this explainer, we break down what each side has said about ongoing talks so far – and what they are disagreeing about.

Will the US release frozen Iranian assets?

On Monday, Iran’s top negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said an agreement had been reached with the US to release $12bn in frozen Iranian funds.

But Vance said only that if Iranian assets are unfrozen, they will be used by Iran to buy US agricultural products. “They’re going to go to make American farmers richer and feed the Iranian people,” he said.

“We’re doing very well in terms of negotiating a fair and reasonable deal. One of the things that we are doing also, and it came up last night, is money that’s being unfrozen is going to be used to buy food, and the food’s going to be bought exclusively through the United States from our farmers,” Trump emphasised on Monday.

Advertisement

“And corn, soybeans, all of the things they need are going to be bought from our farmers. So our farmers are very happy. I’ve had a lot of calls; they were very happy about this.”

On Tuesday, he added in a Truth Social post: “The Money and/or Sanctions that the U.S. Treasury is releasing goes into escrow, controlled by the U.S.A., and will be used for the purchase of food and medical supplies, exclusively from the United States, including Corn, Wheat, and Soybeans from our great American Farmers. These are things that are desperately needed by Iran. This is a humanitarian crisis, and I feel it is necessary to help, NOW, before it is too late. Talks are going well! Thank you for your attention to this matter.”

However, on Tuesday, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei dismissed reports that Iran would be forced to buy US foodstuffs, saying the assets “will be released and will be employed with absolute liberty by Iran in order to purchase whatever goods or commodities needed by the nation”.

What sanctions will be lifted on Iran?

So far, the US has waived sanctions on Iranian oil for 60 days, freeing up an estimated 67 million barrels of oil currently being stored on boats and tankers in the Gulf. The Chinese state and independent refineries are the biggest buyers of this oil.

On Tuesday, Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva reported good progress in talks.

Advertisement

“Our colleagues continue to discuss in very good talks yesterday at technical level,” said Ali Bahreini, adding that two working groups will be established within the coming days to discuss the removal of sanctions against Iran and issues related to Iranian nuclear activities.

Iran is one of the most heavily sanctioned countries in the world, having been subject to US sanctions for decades. The lifting of some of these under the 2015 nuclear agreement was reversed when Trump walked out of the landmark deal. Billions of dollars of Iranian assets remain frozen in foreign banks as a result.

In an X post, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote that sanctions on Iranian oil exports and petrochemical sales had been waived, the blockade had been lifted, a number of frozen Iranian assets had been released and a major reconstruction and development plan for Iran had been launched. Araghchi said key Iranian conditions had now been met.

Reporting from the White House, Al Jazeera’s Alan Fisher said: “This is a big deal with the oil sanctions being removed because up until this point, the Iranians sold oil, but they sold at a huge discount because many companies, many countries didn’t want to fall on the wrong side of American sanctions.

“Now, they can actually sell their oil at full market rates, and that’s a huge boost for the Iranian economy. Now, the intention is, of course, that we reach a deal where all the sanctions will disappear, but we’ll only get confirmation of that if we get to a final deal that is finally sent to the United Nations for approval by a Security Council resolution.”

Advertisement

Al Jazeera’s Almigdad Alruhaid, reporting from Tehran, said: “This is a very crucial point for Iran. We have seen this as a central Iranian demand for relieving sanctions and frozen assets.”

Will Iran allow nuclear inspectors in?

The two sides have very different accounts of what was agreed on Monday.

Vance claimed Iran had agreed to invite International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors back into the country. He added that communications with the IAEA could happen as soon as Monday.

“That is a major milestone for the American people. And the first step in permanently denuclearising- permanently ending a nuclear weapons programne in Iran,” Vance said.

On Tuesday, however, Iranian officials denied this.

Advertisement

At a news conference in Tehran, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Baghaei said Iran has not met with IAEA Director General Grossi and has no clear schedule for IAEA inspectors to examine Iranian nuclear facilities.

The IAEA is the UN’s nuclear watchdog. IAEA inspected Iran’s nuclear programme under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a 2015 nuclear deal with Iran negotiated by former US President Barack Obama, but which Trump pulled the US out of in 2018.

Iran eventually barred inspectors from entering the country last year following the 12-day war with Israel, in which Israel pounded nuclear and military sites. The US also joined the war, attacking three Iranian nuclear sites.

On Tuesday, US President Donald Trump weighed into the dispute about what had actually been agreed, when he posted on his Truth Social platform: “Despite their protestations and false statements to the contrary, coupled with the drumbeat of the Fake News, which is doing everything possible to make the U.S. Victory as small and insignificant as possible, Iran has fully and completely agreed to highest level Nuclear inspections long into the future (Infinity!!!). This will insure [sic] “Nuclear Honesty.” If they did not agree to this, there would be no further negotiations!”

He added: “Based on this and other major concessions being made by Iran, I have agreed to allow the Hormuz Strait to remain OPEN, with no further Naval Blockade. However, all ships are remaining in place should it be necessary to reinstitute the Blockade, which seems, at this point, highly unlikely.”

Advertisement

What about other nuclear talks?

Vance said the US and Iran had made “a lot of great progress” on other nuclear talks, without providing additional details.

Iran’s uranium enrichment programme has been a chief bone of contention between the US and Iran.

Under the JCPOA, which Trump pulled the US out of in 2018, Iran had been allowed to enrich uranium up to 3.67 percent only – enough for the purposes of a nuclear power programme. Inspectors confirmed that it had stuck to this limit.

But in the years since 2018, it is believed to have resumed higher levels of enrichment and currently holds 440kg (970lb) of uranium enriched to 60 percent. This is still short of weapons-grade, at 90 percent, but is the point at which it becomes much quicker to achieve 90 percent enrichment.

While the US has been calling for Iran to hand over its stockpile of enriched uranium to it, Iran has consistently stated that it will not do this, although it has, at times, appeared willing to consider the prospect of handing it over to a third country. The agreement announced last week appeared to suggest that diluting it on site in Iran could also be an option.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending