A quick update on what has been going on here at Columbia in recent months:
One problem I’ve always had with arguments about “Zionism” and “anti-Zionism” has been that it’s unclear to me exactly what “Zionism” means. I always thought I was a “Zionist” (since I support Israel’s right to exist, in particular as a state providing protection to the Jewish people). But Scott Aaronson explained here that to him it means being willing to kill Palestinian children on a large scale (and giving the finger to the rest of the world when doing so) in order to eliminate any possible threat from the Palestinian people. This seems to also be the point of view of a sizable part of the Israeli government. By his definition, I’m (very strongly) opposed to “Zionism”. The task force report doesn’t engage with the issue of what limits it’s appropriate to put on people’s _expression_ of their opposition to murdering children.
extend this process beyond the start of the new year to take the time to fully understand each candidate’s strengths and potential fit.
According to Bloomberg, a major reason they don’t have anyone chosen is that leading candidates have opted out, specifically the president of Vanderbilt and the provost at Harvard.
For a good explanation of the illegal Trump campaign to shakedown universities (and of the role of the Columbia trustees in going along with this), see this article in the Chronicle. There’s an explanation here of how this affects anyone thinking of taking the Columbia job. Would you take the job if it was offered to you by people now famous the world over as the most willing to go along with illegal demands from the would-be Trump fascist dictatorship? A high priority of the trustees appears to be making sure that nothing happens here that will upset Steven Miller. Would you take a job that came with marching orders “Don’t do anything to upset Steven Miller, or we’ll fire you as fast as we fired Katrina Armstrong”?