As protests on college campuses show signs of calming, the backlash against university administrators is heating up. Faculty members at an increasing number of schools are holding no-confidence votes, exerting pressure on presidents and chancellors for their responses to the protests.
On Wednesday, the University of Southern California’s academic senate voted 21-7 to censure President Carol Folt and Provost Andrew Guzman over their decision to cancel commencement amid ongoing protests. That vote came a week after faculty members at Barnard College took similar action against President Laura Rosenbury for suspending students involved in protests, and Emory College faculty members expressed no confidence in President Gregory Fenves over his crackdown on protesters.
Skip to end of carousel(Yana Paskova/For The Washington Post)
End of carouselWaves of antiwar protests are spreading across colleges campuses, with growing police arrests as graduation season approaches. See the universities where protests are intensifying.
Are you a college student? Tell us about protests on your campus.
The referendum on university leaders lays bare the tensions that have emerged as presidents rely on law enforcement to quash demonstrations, shut down encampments and punish students for their involvement in pro-Palestinian protests. The votes have no legal impact but signal to trustees that university leaders have lost the support of the campus community. The actions also give trustees a chance to affirm support for their leaders or signal the beginning of the end.
No-confidence votes have become more common as a means for faculty members to voice concerns over restructurings and layoffs, said Jonathan Fansmith, senior vice president of government relations at the American Council on Education, which represents colleges and universities. Trustees, he said, take it seriously when they see dissatisfaction with the president’s administration of the institution. The latest round of votes, however, is complex because trustees probably had a hand in the decisions that are under scrutiny.
“This is a different set of circumstances,” Fansmith said. “There is a clear disagreement with a series of actions that probably involved other decision-makers. I can’t imagine many of these presidents took action without involving the trustees.”
At Columbia, trustees have so far shown unwavering support for Shafik, despite congressional lawmakers calling for her resignation after protests over the Israel-Gaza war ground the campus to a halt. Her decision to call New York police to clear an encampment on campus that went up within hours of her appearance on Capitol Hill in mid-April outraged faculty members and alumni, and sparked a solidarity movement that has led to a crop of encampments at colleges nationwide.
The faculty of Columbia’s Arts and Sciences, the largest of the university’s 21 schools, will have until Wednesday to vote on a motion of no confidence in Shafik.
“This is a historic effort of the faculty to reassert the values of academic freedom, freedom of speech, and shared governance in the face of repeated violations of all three by the Columbia President,” said Sheldon Pollock, professor emeritus of South Asian studies.
Columbia faculty members have criticized Shafik for not defending the faculty and students at a House committee hearing on antisemitism last month, where they say she acquiesced to political interference.
Congressional Republicans have scrutinized college presidents’ handling of protests and antisemitism following the Oct. 7 Hamas attack and ensuing Israel-Gaza war.
Before Shafik appeared on Capitol Hill, the presidents of MIT, Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania testified in December about campus antisemitism before the Republican-led House Committee on Education and the Workforce. The presidents’ refusal to unequivocally say calls for the genocide of Jews violated their campus policies angered lawmakers and some alumni. Weeks later, the presidents of Penn and Harvard resigned despite the support of their boards, faculty members and students.
College and university leaders have struggled to strike a balance between maintaining safe campus environments and upholding students’ and the faculty’s right to speak out. Although the spate of arrests and tense exchanges between police and protesters has largely died down, colleges are still wrestling with how best to handle ongoing protests.
This week, administrators at Penn, MIT and the University of Arizona summoned police to disperse protesters, much to the disappointment of vocal faculty members and students.
Sally Kornbluth, MIT’s president, said nine protesters were arrested Thursday after they blocked the entrance to a parking garage and refused to leave. Early Friday, 10 people were arrested when they refused to leave a pro-Palestinian encampment. A protest group, MIT Scientists Against Genocide Encampment, decried the arrests as “violent escalation” in response to “non-violent action.”
Kornbluth said provocations had escalated on campus since the tents first went up April 21. In recent days, pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli protesters have shouted at one another, threats have been made on both sides and tensions, she said, are very high. Some students have been suspended, but disciplinary measures were not sufficient to end the encampment, she wrote.
Meanwhile, nearby in Cambridge, Mass., protesters at Harvard University said Friday that the school had suspended students involved in an encampment on Harvard Yard, calling the move an “unprecedented escalation” in an email announcing the measures taken against students. A spokesman for the school said administrators repeatedly warned protesters of disciplinary action for participation in the encampment, a “violation of university policies” and “a significant disruption to the educational environment.”
A group of professors at Tulane University in New Orleans, where police cleared out an encampment April 29, condemned administrators Wednesday for criminalizing peaceful student protests.
“If we look across the country, we see arrests, over-policed campuses, and the criminalization of our students and political speech,” said Jana Lipman, professor of history at Tulane. “These actions create a culture of fear and are part of an attack on higher education writ large.”
Even if college leaders survive calls for their resignation over the handling of campus protests, they still run the risk of irreparable damage to their relationships with the faculty and students.
“The ability to maintain the trust of your student body, your faculty is important,” Fansmith said. “If that trust is damaged, it certainly is a concern that college presidents have to take into account. It’s not clear how they bring that back and what the long-term implications may be even once this moment has passed.”
Susan Svrluga and David Nakamura contributed to this report.
