A coalition of students and faculty at Columbia University has initiated a comprehensive campaign to fundamentally restructure the institution’s highest governing body, the Board of Trustees. This movement emerges from mounting concerns over what participants describe as systemic governance failures and the disenfranchisement of university stakeholders.
The campaign, spearheaded by the Columbia chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), cites multiple catalysts for reform. Primary among these is the administration’s handling of pro-Palestine protests, particularly the decision to involve law enforcement which resulted in hundreds of student arrests, numerous suspensions, and several students facing deportation proceedings. Activists maintain these actions have created a chilling effect on free speech across campus.
Additional grievances include the university’s settlement with the Trump administration, wherein Columbia agreed to pay $220 million to resolve allegations of violating federal anti-discrimination laws rather than contesting the charges. Professor Michael Thaddeus, AAUP vice-president, characterized this as a ‘deeply misguided decision’ that involved unprecedented concessions to government demands regarding hiring practices, curriculum development, and admissions policies.
The campaign also highlights the case of Dr. Robert Hadden, a former gynecologist convicted of sexual assault, whose misconduct they allege was systematically concealed by university administration for decades.
Critics identify structural deficiencies within the current governance model. The 20-member board, composed primarily of finance sector executives with minimal academic representation, operates through a self-perpetuating nomination process without stakeholder input. Professor Jean E Howard notes the board’s concerning lack of transparency, refusing to publish meeting minutes while simultaneously curtailing the powers of the University Senate.
The proposed reforms envision transforming the board into a democratically elected body that better reflects the Columbia community’s diversity. Advocates argue this structural change would counter what they describe as oligarchic governance serving the interests of the wealthiest one percent rather than the broader university population.
While organizers acknowledge the long-term nature of this initiative, they emphasize the urgency of establishing more representative governance to restore Columbia’s ethical and intellectual integrity amid what they characterize as the challenges of the Trump era.