The University Senate passed a new “resolution to combat antisemitism and all forms of hate” at Friday’s plenary following a debate about the “dilution” of the resolution from its original draft.

Senators proposed three amendments to the resolution, including two different definitions of antisemitism. A statement clarifying that the resolution should not be skewed to “condone the deportation of students, staff, or faculty for their political speech” was also proposed. All of the amendments were tabled.

The approved resolution was “less forceful” and “less direct” than its original draft, Howard Worman, professor of medicine, pathology, and cell biology at the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, said at the plenary. Worman introduced the resolution at the plenary and said the resolution was a “small step in the right direction.”

“Unchecked antisemitism, if not combated against aggressively, will put Columbia’s federal funding, philanthropic donations, and student and faculty recruitment at risk,” Worman, who serves as the co-chair of the committee on external relations and research policy, said at the plenary.

“The University Senate reaffirms its commitment to combating antisemitism and hate in all its forms and to ensuring a safe and supportive environment for all members of our community,” the resolution reads.

The resolution calls on University stakeholders to “actively oppose” antisemitism and hate “in all forms,” and to promote awareness of the impacts of harassment. The resolution also urged Columbia’s administration to “educate the university community about hate and its harmful consequences, fostering mutual understanding and respect across all identities and backgrounds.”

The resolution concludes with a call for “continued collaboration” between student groups, schools, and the administration to “build a campus culture united against hate in all its forms.”

Worman clarified that he was given a draft resolution by employees of the Columbia University Irving Medical Center including Janie Weiss, IT manager of the Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center. Worman then brought the draft to the committee on external relations and research policy, where it was deliberated and eventually brought to the executive committee and the plenary.

Following Worman’s introduction of the resolution, Weiss expressed “deep concern about the fundamental changes made to this resolution” at the Friday plenary. She said that the original version was “specifically crafted to address antisemitism, with clear recognition of its unique manifestations and impacts on Jewish and Israeli members of our community.”

She added that “the revised version has been specifically diluted” and that it “transforms what was meant to be a focused, actionable resolution addressing antisemitism into a general statement against hate, losing both specificity and accountability.”

Weiss identified four “critical” examples of dilution in the resolution. She pointed to the “elimination of specific references” to Jewish and Israeli students, faculty, and staff as targets of antisemitic harassment.

Spectator obtained Weiss’ original draft of the resolution, which reads, “recent incidents of antisemitic harassment, both verbal and physical, have caused harm to Jewish and Israeli students, faculty, and staff at Columbia University causing worldwide ramifications affecting reputation, funding, and future student and faculty recruitment.”

Weiss said at the plenary that the repeated addition of “all forms of hate” dilutes the “focus on antisemitism,” and “effectively diminishes the resolution's original purpose.” Weiss also flagged the removal of “explicit language” about physical and verbal harassment of Jewish community members.

“A resolution that cannot name those it aims to protect will struggle to achieve its intended purpose,” she added.

Weiss’ draft resolution calls for the University to take “all necessary measures to hold accountable any individuals or groups that engage in or promote antisemitic harassment or violence, ensuring adherence to Columbia’s policies and standards of conduct.”

The first proposed amendment, a definition of antisemitism different from that in the draft proposal, was suggested by Susan Bernofsky, professor of writing. Bernofsky said that the resolution’s generality “hands a sort of blank check to political forces who wish our institution ill.” She added that she was specifically worried that the unamended resolution gives unchecked agency to “people who are eager to look for excuses to deport our students.”

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Jan. 29 outlining a federal crackdown on “unlawful anti-Semitic harassment and violence,” including on college campuses. Trump threatened to deport “resident aliens” who participated in pro-Palestinian protests on campus in a Jan. 30 White House fact sheet.

Bernofsky’s proposed additional clause read, “International scholars and experts on antisemitism define antisemitism as discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews, or against Jewish institutions as Jewish.”

“A proposal that is too broad, that doesn’t offer any guidelines at all, is at risk of being misused against our students and faculty,” she said. “Also, we are a university, and we are scholars, and I think we offer guidance in this country.”

Andrew Einstein, a cardiologist and researcher at the medical center, proposed a second, similar amendment, which offered a varied definition of antisemitism and would have restored the “specific verbiage” used in the original resolution.

Einstein’s proposed amendment read, “Antisemitism has been defined by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) as a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed at hatred toward Jews, and it manifests through various acts, including discrimination, harassment, and violence.”

Jeffrey Gordon, co-director of the Law School’s Ira M. Millstein Center for Global Markets and Corporate Ownership, added that he believes Bernofsky has “not been fully revealing of what’s at stake here,” stating that there are “contentious definitions of what antisemitism consists of—and the big question is, does it have anything to do with Israel, or not?”

He added that Bernofsky’s amendment was “put forward by those who think that anything having to do with Israel is not antisemitic behavior.”

He said that given the nature of the discussion of Israel in a definition of antisemitism, he thinks not having an amendment is the “right way to go.”

Absonede George, professor of history at Barnard, made a point to the contrary, voicing that she would not feel comfortable voting on an “undefined category” in the absence of a definition “so central to the entire project at hand.”

Worman told Spectator that he believes the senate must “get something out there” and that “down the road, there’ll be maybe specific resolutions that define things according to the law, or maybe specific resolutions about mask bans or other things.”

Worman said in an interview with Spectator that antisemitism has been a “big factor” impacting the reputation of the University, adding that this resolution “may make it more difficult for people to object to other resolutions that may deal with antisemitism.”

“Our students and colleagues who are here on visas may see our passing of this measure, which I want to pass, as an endorsement of the executive order which cites a broad category of antisemitism, and therefore that our students and colleagues may see us as endorsing the threat of political deportation against them,” Joseph Howley, associate professor of classics, said when proposing a resolution which would distinguish the senate’s definition of antisemitism from Trump’s executive order.

Howley proposed another amendment to state that “nothing in this resolution shall be construed by the University or any of its members to facilitate or condone the deportation of students, staff, or faculty for their political speech.”

Henry Ginsberg, Herbert and Florence Irving professor of medicine at the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, voiced that he believes Howley’s amendment “makes almost the rest of the resolution moot.”

“It suggests that whoever takes any of those positions, either of those positions, and says whatever they say, there’s nothing that can happen to them,” he said, adding that he would prefer the original resolution.

Howley noted that his intention was to pass the resolution.

“I realize that the original measure is not about deportation,” Howley said. “The circumstances we are in are about deportation. There are many communities on and off campus watching us, and I want us to be very clear what we stand for.”