Katherine Franke: "Columbia President Minouche Shafik Relies on a Very Small Circle of Zionists"

The release of undercover footage from Columbia University exposes an environment where certain faculty not only sympathize with anti-Israel activists but advise them on strategies to circumvent official channels and mount more disruptive protests. The conversation, recorded covertly, highlights a setting where anti-Zionist sentiment is supported behind closed doors, raising questions about the role of academic authorities in guiding student movements toward confrontation rather than dialogue.

A member of the Columbia University Faculty, Kathrine Franke, voices frustration with the university’s leadership, and expresses disappointment in Columbia President Minouche Shafik’s approach since her arrival. Ms. Franke’s words reflect a campus climate where moderate voices are overshadowed by what they describe as a “Zionist general counsel” and external actors pressuring the administration. Students are encouraged to consider direct action, including continued protests and personal appeals to the president, while quietly evading official university communication channels.

Rifts Between Faculty and Administration

Ms. Franke criticizes the president’s reliance on a small, select group of advisors described as “pro-Israel” and overly deferential to external pressures. These advisors reportedly exclude more vocal and critical segments of the community. The results are policies perceived as unsupportive of pro-Palestinian student activism, fueling student frustration and a sense of disenfranchisement.

Ms. Franke laments, “The advice of the general counsel has not been good, mostly she’s followed it.” Such statements indicate that key governance decisions are influenced by a legal team perceived as “very Zionist,” guiding the university’s stance on these tensions. Ms. Franke suggests the president is isolated and reliant on questionable counsel, stating, “I wish we had a president with a backbone.”

Encouragement to Resist Official Channels

The conversation also reveals guidance for students to bypass official university email addresses and digital communications. The rationale: “They’ve instituted a police state, and police states usually surveil.” This advice aims to shield student activists from scrutiny, implying fears that pro-Palestinian advocates are being monitored or could face repercussions.

According to Ms. Franke, the administration primarily hears only the Jewish students alleging an “anti-Semitic environment,” ignoring the perspectives of Palestinian or pro-Palestinian students. By suggesting that students write personal letters or find alternative means to communicate dissent, Ms. Franke promotes more clandestine methods to pressure university leadership. “What would you think about writing Shafik a letter?” she says, proposing a more personalized approach that might influence the president’s decisions.

Fueling More Aggressive Protest Tactics

Ms. Franke’s remarks encourage direct action and hint at continuing demonstrations. “Not having somebody like, banging on the outside of the library which we’re going to keep doing,” they say, acknowledging the intent to persist with disruptive tactics. Such strategies aim to make pro-Palestinian grievances impossible to ignore and to challenge what the faculty member sees as institutional bias.

By advising students to intensify their protests and engage in confrontational activism, Ms. Franke blurs the line between mentorship and radicalization. Instead of fostering balanced debate or encouraging official dialogues, the guidance offered steers students toward subversion, aligning with broader narratives of anti-establishment resistance on campus.

Underlying Motivations and Potential Consequences

The conversation underscores a broader issue: when faculty openly guide students to operate outside established channels and distrust official communications, trust in academic and administrative institutions erodes. Students risk becoming pawns in ideological battles, while the university environment becomes more fractious, impeding rational discourse.

Prolonged polarization may harm all parties, including the very students these faculty claim to support. If Columbia’s leadership remains under pressure to clamp down or appease outside interests, the campus could witness a cycle of escalating tensions and confrontations. Absent a credible and neutral mediation framework, even well-intentioned efforts to highlight Palestinian perspectives may devolve into ongoing unrest and intensify animosity.

Matthew Tyrmand

Head of V24 Investigations