masters in education harvard

Share this page

Students in the Program in Education are enrolled in and receive their degree from the Harvard Kenneth C. Griffin Graduate School of Arts and Sciences even though they may work primarily with faculty at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and at other Harvard Faculties.

The interdisciplinary nature of this program is unique, as you are encouraged to work with multiple Harvard faculty members to study education as a core while also engaging with different disciplines such as economics, psychology, public policy, sociology, or organizational behavior.

Each concentration—culture, institutions, and society; education policy and program evaluation; or human development, learning, and teaching—will equip you with domain knowledge in education, provide training in relevant disciplines, ensure rigorous preparation in a range of research methods, and promote the development of new research and knowledge with a transformative impact on education.

Student research includes a study of policies and practices to increase college student outcomes; an investigation of ethical decision-making by teachers in classrooms at the intersection of philosophy, political theory, and teacher practice; and an exploration of early behavioral and environmental predictors of language skills in infants at high and low risk for autism spectrum disorder.

Graduates have gone on to universities like Vanderbilt, University of Massachusetts Boston, George Mason University, and the University of California, Irvine. Others have secured research positions at Abt Associates, the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research, Rand Corporation, Mathematica, and Netflix.

Additional information on the graduate program is available from the PhD in Education , and requirements for the degree are detailed in Policies .

Areas of Study

Culture, Institutions, and Society | Education Policy and Program Evaluation | Human Development, Learning and Teaching

Admissions Requirements

Please review admissions requirements and other information before applying. You can find degree program-specific admissions requirements below.

Academic Background

Successful candidates for admission will have outstanding academic preparation and a deep commitment to the field of education, as demonstrated through prior research, work experience, and/or volunteer experience. Prior academic study in education is not required.

Statement of Purpose

In your statement, please describe your area of research interest. What experiences led you to your research ambitions? Why is there a need for further research in this area? How do you anticipate your research fitting in within the larger education sector? Concisely state your past work in your intended field of study and in related fields. Briefly indicate your career objectives. The statement should be no more than 1,000 words.

Standardized Tests

GRE General: Optional GRE Subject Test: Optional iBT TOEFL preferred minimum score: 104 IELTS preferred minimum score: 7.5

See list of Education faculty

APPLICATION DEADLINE

Questions about the program.

• Degree Programs
• Professional Education
• Faculty & Research
• Usable Knowledge

Download Master's Brochure

13 Appian Way | Cambridge, MA 02138

• Maps and Directions

©2017 President and Fellows of Harvard College

If you have questions about the admissions process, please email [email protected] .

• HGSE Publishing Polices & Disclaimers
• Privacy Policy
• Trademark Notice

• Graduate School
• CAMBRIDGE, MA

Harvard Graduate School of Education

• Rating 4.67 out of 5   12 reviews
• Massachusetts

Scholarship

Masters programs, most popular masters programs.

• Mathematics Teacher Education 21 Students
• Education Research and Evaluation 6 Students
• Educational Administration
• Educational Technology
• English and Reading Teacher Education
• International Education
• School Counseling and Guidance Services
• School Psychology
• Specialized Teaching and Education

Doctoral Programs

Most popular doctoral programs.

• Higher Education Administration
• Public Policy Analysis

Claim Your graduate school Today!

Learn how to pay for grad school, tuition & financial aid, student life.

• Down-to-earth 14%
• Friendly 29%
• Prepared me for the real world 14%
• Supportive/helped me grow 86%

Campus Resources

Return on investment.

• Less than $25,000 14%
• $25,000 - $50,000 29%
• $50,000 - $75,000 43%
• More than $100,000 14%
• $50,000 - $75,000 29%
• $75,000 - $100,000 29%
• Did not graduate yet 43%

Living in the Area

• Cost of Living grade  C
• Crime & Safety grade  unavailable
• Nightlife grade  A+

Similar Grad Schools

• Milligan University
• MILLIGAN COLLEGE, TN
• Lawrence Technological University
• SOUTHFIELD, MI
• Biola University
• LA MIRADA, CA
• Rating 5 out of 5   2 reviews
• PennWest Edinboro
• EDINBORO, PA
• Rating 4.79 out of 5   14 reviews

Harvard Graduate School of Education Reviews

• Rating 5 out of 5   Excellent 9   reviews ( 75 %)
• Rating 4 out of 5   Very Good 2   reviews ( 17 %)
• Rating 3 out of 5   Average 1   reviews ( 8 %)
• Rating 2 out of 5   Poor 0   reviews ( 0 %)
• Rating 1 out of 5   Terrible 0   reviews ( 0 %)
• Master's Student
• 25 days ago
• Overall Experience

Add to List

All Programs

Program finder.

• Early Childhood

CEEL Series 3 Learn A: Cornerstone Educator Competencies

Ceel series 2 learn a: effective approaches to leadership, ceel series 1 learn a: the science of early learning, teaching students to ask their own questions: best practices in the question formulation technique.

• Early Childhood ,

Culturally Responsive Literature Instruction

Universal design for learning: explore.

• Higher Education

Aligning Strategic Priorities with Financial Resources in Higher Education

Leading teacher teams: promoting growth through effective collaboration.

• Mar 21, 2024 - May 1, 2024 Price: $399.00
• Jun 20, 2024 - Jul 31, 2024 Price: $399.00

Teachers Mentoring Teachers: Practices for Powerful Professional Communities

Instructional coaching through change: supporting teachers in action.

• Academics /

Mathematics for Teaching Master’s Degree Program

From Harvard-trained faculty, you'll learn new strategies that will dramatically improve your ability to teach.

Online Courses

11 out of 12 total courses

On-Campus Experience

One 3-week summer course

$3,220 per course

Program Overview

Through the master’s degree field in mathematics for teaching you:

• Build deeper knowledge of mathematics content, with a particular focus on middle and high school math classrooms.
• Learn tactics that can improve student motivation through interactive problem-solving activities.
• Develop an enhanced understanding of what it means to learn math and where mathematical misconceptions and student confusion can occur.

Program Benefits

Customizable course curriculum and stackable certificates

A faculty of math instructors, many of who have earned PhDs in math from Harvard University and have taught at Harvard

Personalized academic & career advising

A capstone project or thesis option

Paid research opportunities

Harvard Alumni Association membership upon graduation

Customizable Course Curriculum

Our curriculum is flexible in pace and customizable by design. You can study part time, choosing courses that fit your schedule and align with your career goals.

As you work through the 12-course program, you’ll focus on topics such as discrete mathematics, mathematical modeling, graph theory, and calculus. To further personalize your experience, you choose between a thesis or capstone track. Along the way, you can earn a graduate certificate in learning design and technology or math leadership .

11 Online Courses

• Asynchronous and synchronous formats
• Fall, spring, January, and summer options

Immersive 3-week summer course: Appraising and Reimagining Middle and High School Mathematics Education

Capstone or Thesis Track

• Thesis: features a 9-month independent research project with a faculty advisor
• Capstone: includes exploring contemporary research in math education and creating a state-of-the-art lesson plan

The path to your degree begins before you apply to the program.

First, you’ll register for and complete 2 required courses, earning at least a B in each. These foundational courses are investments in your studies and count toward your degree, helping ensure success in the program.

Getting Started

We invite you to explore degree requirements, confirm your initial eligibility, and learn more about our unique “earn your way in” admissions process.

A Faculty of Mathematics Experts

You’ll learn from Harvard faculty and industry leaders who will help you gain real-world perspectives. Our instructors are renowned experts in mathematics — and how to teach the subject. They bring a genuine passion for teaching, with students giving our faculty an average rating of 4.6 out of 5.

Andrew Engelward

Assistant Dean of Academic Programs at Harvard Extension School

Our Community at a Glance

Most of our graduates are full-time middle school and high school math teachers. A number of graduates work as math tutors, either running their own private tutoring companies, or employed by such programs as the Russian School of Mathematics.

In this program, you'll join a community of fellow educators, grow as a teacher, and,ultimately earn your Harvard University degree — a Master of Liberal Arts (ALM) in Extension Studies, Field: Mathematics for Teaching.

Download: Mathematics for Teaching Master's Degree Fact Sheet

Average Age

Average Courses Taken Each Semester

Work Full Time

Would Recommend the Program

Professional Experience in the Field

Pursued to Deepen Expertise

My coursework at Harvard Extension supported and helped me to develop the concept behind Educational Justice... My professors at Harvard have not only been huge fans of our efforts, they’ve helped me to grow and support the venture in a number of key areas from research to networking.

Tuition & Financial Aid

Affordability is core to our mission. When compared to our continuing education peers, it’s a fraction of the cost.

After admission, you may qualify for financial aid . Typically, eligible students receive grant funds to cover a portion of tuition costs each term, in addition to federal financial aid options.

Learning & Connection

Deep learning springs from human connection. That’s why we work so hard to bring people together — whether in a live virtual classroom or an in-person seminar on campus.

Our approach to online learning fosters interaction without sacrificing flexibility. Each week, you’ll engage with your instructor, participate in peer discussions, and receive one-on-one support from teaching staff—all from your home or office.

Stackable Certificates

• Learning Design and Technology Graduate Certificate
• Math Leadership Graduate Certificate

Harvard Division of Continuing Education

The Division of Continuing Education (DCE) at Harvard University is dedicated to bringing rigorous academics and innovative teaching capabilities to those seeking to improve their lives through education. We make Harvard education accessible to lifelong learners from high school to retirement.

Howard Gardner Named 2024 Convocation Speaker

• Posted April 15, 2024
• By Ryan Nagelhout
• Teachers and Teaching

Harvard Graduate School of Education Dean Bridget Terry Long has announced that Howard Gardner will address the graduating class at its 2024 Convocation ceremony on May 22.

Gardner, a self-described Harvard “lifer,” is a pioneer in education best known for his theory of multiple intelligences, a critique of the notion that there exists but a single human intelligence that can be assessed by standard psychometric instruments. His decades of work in academic theory and public policy have made him an essential voice in the fields of education and psychology, shifting the very nature of how we teach and learn.

“For many years, Howard Gardner has been an insightful voice in the field of education and a proud member of the HGSE community. His scholarly contributions are immense — from the theory of multiple intelligences to the Good Project and his long service as co-director of Project Zero,” says Long. “But it is his unending curiosity and generosity that stand out for me, and I cannot think of a better person to instill a message of hope, good work, and civic participation to our next generation of educators and leaders.”

Gardner received his Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1971. A founding member of Harvard’s Project Zero, Gardner served as co-director for 28 years and is now a long-term member of its executive committee. In 1981, Gardner received a MacArthur Prize Fellowship as well as a fellowship from the John S. Guggenheim Memorial Foundation in 2000.

The author of more than 30 books translated into 32 languages, Gardner has written several hundred articles over his lengthy career. Most notably his book, Frames Of Mind: The Theory Of Multiple Intelligences , was published in 1983 and revolutionized the worlds of both education and psychology. Gardner’s intellectual memoir, A Synthesizing Mind , was published in 2020.

Since the mid-1990s, he has directed The Good Project, founded in collaboration with psychologists Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and William Damon. A group of initiatives, The Good Project is designed to understand the nature of various “goods” and promote their realization, helping individuals reflect upon the ethical dilemmas of everyday life and giving them the tools to make thoughtful decisions.

Gardner, now retired from teaching, continues to research and write and still plays an active role on HGSE’s campus, calling it his “home away from home.” He praised the students he will now address as they receive their degrees later this spring.

“HGSE students are very special: they have a combination of dedication, idealism and service that makes them stand out at the university,” says Gardner. “They belong to one of the most important and distinguished professions in the world and also one that must constantly monitor changes in the broader society.”

Gardner has received honorary degrees from 31 colleges and universities throughout his career, but says commencement at the Ed School holds a distinct place in his heart.

“Commencement at every school is special but for me HGSE commencement is unique,” Gardner says. “The setting is lovely, the families are there in full force – including grandparents and infants – and those about to get their degrees have learned to change the world. And many of them will, for the better.”

The latest research, perspectives, and highlights from the Harvard Graduate School of Education

Related Articles

Q+A: Zachary Clark, Ed.M.’12

Anti-Racist Teaching at the Ed School

So Your Student Believes the Earth Is Flat

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

Sean Kelly named dean of Arts & Humanities

Overseers announce senior officers for 2024-25

From scissors, PFAS everywhere to effects of standardized tests, incarcerated moms

When your soulmate’s a classmate.

Husband and wife — both pursuing master’s degrees at Harvard — merge love for education to help students in India

Harvard Staff Writer

Kris Snibbe/Harvard Staff Photographer

Part of the Commencement 2024 series

A collection of stories covering Harvard University’s 373rd Commencement.

Alria and Vyankatesh Kharage met as undergraduates in Mumbai University, fell in love, and began building a life together when their shared passion for education brought them to Harvard.

The Kharages are both pursuing their master’s degrees in education at the  Harvard Graduate School of Education  — Alria in the Education Leadership, Organizations, and Entrepreneurship program and Vyankatesh in the  Learning Design, Innovation, and Technology  program. It’s rare that married couples attend graduate programs together due to the complexities of School admissions. To highlight their unique status, the Ed School made them the subject of a Valentine’s  reel  on Instagram. 

Recently in the Gutman Building, the Kharages, who married three years ago, reminisced about their time together at the Ed School as soulmates and study partners, sharing household chores, and even seeing snow for the first time.

“It’s been a beautiful year. There are many remarkable things we have experienced together, and because we are in the same School, we can understand what the other one is going through. And I love that I have a permanent study buddy.” Alria Kharage

“Living together and working together has been double the joy,” said Vyankatesh.

“It’s been a beautiful year,” said Alria. “There are many remarkable things we have experienced together, and because we are in the same School, we can understand what the other one is going through. And I love that I have a permanent study buddy.”

The Kharages found their calling for education before they found each other. Alria’s focus stems from the story of her mother, who halted education in the 10th grade but worked her way up to a high administrative position at a university. 

“My mother has been instrumental in shaping my love and dedication for education,” said Alria, who is an Adrian Cheng Fellow in the Social Innovation Change Initiative at Harvard Kennedy School. “My educational journey would have been incomplete without her inspiration.” 

After college, Alria worked for an IT firm in Mumbai and felt unfulfilled. That changed when she tried a two-year stint at Teach for India, an organization inspired by Teach for America.

“I was working with students in Grade 10, which is the most pivotal grade in the Indian education system because you must decide what you want to do next. Do two more years of secondary school and then go to college, or stop at 10th grade and get a job,” said Alria. “That experience transformed me. I wanted my students to know there were opportunities for them to continue their education.”

Meanwhile, Vyankatesh, the son of a civil service officer, moved around a lot and attended eight different schools. He initially set out to become an athlete and teach sports to children. After that didn’t work out, he took a job in finance. Realizing he liked working with children, he began exploring job opportunities in education. He soon learned that rather than being a classroom teacher, his interest was in designing programs. He traveled across India to learn about different education systems, including Buddhist monasteries. 

“I wanted to understand the Buddhist way of learning,” he said. “When I visited Buddhist monasteries, that is when I realized I wanted to work in the education space and find a way to offer a holistic education to students.” 

During the pandemic, the couple drew on their experiences to launch the  Asude Foundation , a nonprofit that offers programs in career awareness and life skills to 9th- and 10th-graders from low-income households in India. Over three years, the organization’s reach grew from four to 72 schools, helping nearly 15,000 students, but the Kharages’ dream is to help many more. 

Their venture is a  semifinalist  in the Social Impact category of the Harvard iLab’s President’s Innovation Challenge.

Karen Brennan, faculty co-chair of Vyankatesh’s master’s program, said the soon-to-be-graduate fits all the requirements to be a stellar educator. 

“Vyankatesh is an exemplary learner and an exceptional member of our community: curious and creative about the expansive possibilities afforded in learning, humble and persistent in the face of challenges, and generous and kind as a peer and colleague,” said Brennan, Timothy E. Wirth Professor of Practice in Learning Technologies, in an email.

Alria has traits that set her apart from her peers — pragmatism, gratitude, a sense of wonder, and a spirit of supporting others — according to Ebony N. Bridwell-Mitchell, Herbert A. Simon Professor in Education, Management, and Organizational Behavior at the Ed School.

“These are the students who you know will not only go on to impact the world in important ways but students who will do so navigating the world in the way that provides a model for other people to become the best versions of themselves — creating a multiplier effect on the impact they have in the world,” said Bridwell-Mitchell, chair of Alria’s master’s program.

After graduation, the Kharages will return to India and their foundation. For Alria, it is a way to help young students to have the opportunities her mother didn’t have. 

Vyankatesh shares the sentiment. “I see privilege as a blessing and as a responsibility. My family comes from very humble backgrounds, and my parents and grandparents did the hard work to give me better opportunities in life. My responsibility is to take it forward and bring it to people who didn’t have the same opportunities that I had.”

Share this article

You might like.

Distinguished scholar of philosophy calls work of division ‘the soul of higher education’

Vivian Hunt and Tyler Jacks to assume leadership roles after Commencement

Harvard Horizons Symposium highlights stunning, impactful research of grad students

Harvard announces return to required testing

Leading researchers cite strong evidence that testing expands opportunity

When will patients see personalized cancer vaccines?

Sooner than you may think, says researcher who recently won Sjöberg Prize for pioneering work in field

Women rarely die from heart problems, right? Ask Paula.

New book traces how medical establishment’s sexism, focus on men over centuries continues to endanger women’s health, lives

Harvard and Caltech will require test scores for admission again

The colleges join other selective universities that have recently made similar decisions in the wake of new research.

Harvard College will require applicants to submit standardized test scores once again, becoming the latest highly selective school to reinstate the requirement after making the choice optional during the pandemic .

The California Institute of Technology also announced Thursday that, effective immediately, SAT or ACT scores will be required of applicants for undergraduate admission.

Harvard’s undergraduate school had previously said it would remain test-optional through the 2025-2026 application cycle. But on Thursday, it said students applying to the college for fall 2025 admission — hoping to join the graduating class of 2029 — will now have to submit standardized test scores as part of their admissions package.

Dartmouth College , Yale and Brown universities announced similar changes in recent weeks, after officials cited data suggesting that SAT and ACT scores were the best predictors of students’ academic performance at their schools — and that making the tests optional could further disadvantage applicants from more challenging backgrounds.

At Caltech, the highly selective private university in California, applicants’ scores weren’t visible to the admissions office under the moratorium imposed during the pandemic. But an increasing number of applicants had been taking the tests each year, according to university officials. More than 95 percent of the most recently enrolled class took the standardized exam.

Caltech officials said Thursday the decision reaffirms Caltech’s “commitment as a community of scientists and engineers to using all relevant data in its decision-making processes.”

Standardized tests have been debated for decades, with critics saying they added a roadblock for disadvantaged students, among other concerns. When the coronavirus pandemic shut down testing sites across the country, many colleges made the tests optional, and then continued to provide flexibility as they studied the issue.

The changes are another pivot in an unusually tumultuous time for selective college admissions amid fallout from last year’s Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action , and a disastrous rollout of a new federal financial aid form.

Standardized tests are just one part of a package of information applicants send, including grades, essays and recommendation letters. But millions of students study for, take and retake the tests in hopes of optimizing their scores.

Most students who enrolled at Harvard during the test-optional years had submitted test scores with their applications even though they weren’t required, according to the school.

Still, the shift could come as a surprise for some applicants who hadn’t planned to take a test.

In announcing its decision Thursday, university officials cited research by Harvard professors Raj Chetty and David J. Deming, and co-author John N. Friedman of Brown University, who used data from hundreds of universities and more than 3 million undergraduate students per year to explore socioeconomic diversity and admissions.

“Critics correctly note that standardized tests are not an unbiased measure of students’ qualifications, as students from higher-income families often have greater access to test prep and other resources,” Chetty said in a statement Thursday. “But the data reveal that other measures — recommendation letters, extracurriculars, essays — are even more prone to such biases. Considering standardized test scores is likely to make the admissions process at Harvard more meritocratic while increasing socioeconomic diversity.”

In “exceptional cases” when applicants are unable to take the SAT or ACT, the school will accept certain other scores, including AP and IB tests. The policy will be formally assessed at regular intervals, school officials said.

Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences Dean Hopi Hoekstra said the tests are a means for all students, regardless of their background and life experience, to provide information predictive of success in college and beyond.

“Indeed, when students have the option of not submitting their test scores,” Hoekstra said in a statement, “they may choose to withhold information that, when interpreted by the admissions committee in the context of the local norms of their school, could have potentially helped their application. In short, more information, especially such strongly predictive information, is valuable for identifying talent from across the socioeconomic range.”

Other highly selective schools remain test-optional, including the University of Chicago, Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania, which announced last month that it would not require the scores for the 2024-25 application cycle. The University of California system is test-blind — schools don’t consider the scores as a factor in admissions.

• Crimson Careers
• For Employers
• Harvard College
• Harvard Kenneth C. Griffin Graduate School of Arts & Sciences
• Harvard Extension School
• Premed / Pre-Health
• Families & Supporters
• Faculty & Staff
• Prospective Students
• First Generation / Low Income
• International Students
• Students of Color
• Students with Disabilities
• Undocumented Students
• Explore Interests & Make Career Decisions
• Create a Resume/CV or Cover Letter
• Expand Your Network
• Engage with Employers
• Search for a Job
• Find an Internship
• January Experiences (College)
• Find & Apply for Summer Opportunities Funding
• Prepare for an Interview
• Negotiate an Offer
• Apply to Graduate or Professional School
• Access Resources
• AI for Professional Development and Exploration
• Arts & Entertainment
• Business & Entrepreneurship
• Climate, Sustainability, Environment, Energy
• Government, Int’l Relations, Education, Law, Nonprofits
• Life Sciences & Health
• Technology & Engineering
• Still Exploring
• Talk to an Advisor

What got you here won’t get you there! Getting you ready for work life after graduation [hosted by the Office for Graduate Education @ Harvard Medical School]

• Share This: Share What got you here won’t get you there! Getting you ready for work life after graduation [hosted by the Office for Graduate Education @ Harvard Medical School] on Facebook Share What got you here won’t get you there! Getting you ready for work life after graduation [hosted by the Office for Graduate Education @ Harvard Medical School] on LinkedIn Share What got you here won’t get you there! Getting you ready for work life after graduation [hosted by the Office for Graduate Education @ Harvard Medical School] on X

PhD and Master’s Students:

“This workshop is open to graduate students, but is particularly targeted at those getting ready to graduate and enter the workforce.  We strongly encourage graduating PhD and master’s students for this pilot on a new grad school-to-workforce workshop.

You have done the hard steps: finishing your degree and landing that job.

But are you ready for what’s next?

Being successful after graduate school requires more than just hard work and ambition, and the rules and expectations are often unwritten. In other words, in your next chapter…what got you here may not get you there.

In this session, we will equip you with the career management concepts and tools fundamental to successfully launching and navigating the next steps in your career.

This workshop will help you gain familiarity and approaches to managing…

• Networking: why, how, and when to build out your ecosystem
• Building your support network: understanding and identifying people who are the three legs of your success as mentors, evaluators, and sponsors
• Performance management: proactively managing your narrative
• Job, career, calling: dynamically defining what the next steps mean to you
• Career planning: building out your personal “spec sheet” plan to meet your long-term goals
• Business acumen: why you need to pay attention to business context, politics, and strategy

Light food, snacks and beverages will be provided.

Speaker Bio: Juliette Han is the Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer at Cambrian Bio, building a portfolio of innovative drug development programs. Han was previously the Chief of Staff at Two Sigma Private Investments Group, the Private Investments division of the Two Sigma. Prior to Two Sigma, Han was a Chief Operating Officer of People – Human Resources Operations at Citadel, where she led strategic thinking behind performance and teams. Prior to Citadel, Han was Chief of Staff for McKinsey New Ventures at McKinsey & Company and a strategy consultant in the New York office’s healthcare practice. Han holds a Ph.D. in Neuroscience from Harvard University, as well as an M.S. in Physiological Sciences and B.S. in Neuroscience and Physiological Science, both from UCLA. She serves on the alumni advisory council of Harvard Medical School, Division of Medical Sciences, and is a CNBC contributor and Forbes Leadership Strategy contributor.”

Tags: Employer Events , Other Harvard Events , Engage with Employers , Harvard Griffin GSAS Beyond Academia , Harvard Griffin GSAS Masters , Harvard Griffin GSAS PhD

One more step:

Spread the word by sharing this event with your social networks, save it to your calendar, add to calendar.

• International

Trump hush money trial

Israel-Hamas war

Columbia University president testifies in House antisemitism probe

By CNN's Matt Egan and Ramishah Maruf

Hearing wraps up

By CNN's Ramishah Maruf

The congressional hearing on Columbia University's response to antisemitism has now been adjourned.

"We're deeply disturbed by what we're seeing at Columbia, any of the things we've heard in today's hearing," US Rep. Virginia Foxx said.

Professor who called Shafik a "coward" is under investigation for harassment of students

From CNN's Ramishah Maruf

US Rep. Ilhan Omar asked Shafik what the school's policies are for professors who harass students online. Shafik said one professor, Columbia Business School assistant professor Shai Davidai, is under investigation for harassment.

Davidai called Shafik a “coward” in a  fiery speech  last year criticizing the university president for failing to quiet “pro-terror” voices at the school.

The same professor has more than 50 complaints against him, Shafik said.

"As president, I'm used to being attacked, but attacking our students is unacceptable," Shafik said.

Columbia did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Davidai said to CNN that he has never spoken against students by name, only "pro-Hamas" student organizations and professors.

"They're investigating me for the entire reason the entire reason this hearing was held in the first place. Columbia is investigating me for my social media tweets and only my social media tweets," he said.

Columbia officials say they agree on definition of antisemitism

Shafik and David M. Schizer, the former dean of the Columbia University Law School and co-chair of the university’s task force combatting antisemitism, said a March article by the New York Times that said members of Columbia's task force could not settle on the definition of antisemitism is inaccurate but stopped short of calling it false.

"For me personally, any discrimination against people for their Jewish faith is antisemitism," Shafik said.

Shafik told US Rep. Lisa McClain she is "pretty sure" that the rest of the university's task force combatting antisemitism would agree with that definition.

Schizer's definition was more detailed.

"It's bias against Jewish people, which can manifest as ethnic slurs, stereotyping, Holocaust denial, double standards as applies to Israel, and antisemitic tropes," Schizer said.

Shafik says Columbia is firing professor who posted support for Hamas after October 7 attack

From CNN's Matt Egan

Columbia University President Minouche Shafik said the school is firing a professor who allegedly expressed support for Hamas on social media following the October 7 terror attack on Israel.

Rep. Elise Stefanik said Columbia hired Mohamed Abdou as a professor after the terror attack even though she said he posted support for Hamas, Hezbollah and the Islamic Jihad on October 11. 

“I share with you your repugnance at those remarks. I completely understand that. On my watch, for faculty who make remarks that cross the line in terms of antisemitism, there will be consequences,” Shafik said. 

Speaking specifically about Abdou, Shafik said: “He has been terminated.”

Shafik also said that Abdou is grading his students’ papers but will “never teach at Columbia again and that will be on his permanent record.”

Columbia did not immediately respond to a request for comment on when Abdou’s termination takes effect. 

Shafik added that there are five instances of faculty who have either been removed from classrooms or dismissed. 

Columbia Law School dean emeritus draws on family history as antisemitism task force co-chair

From CNN's Lauren Koenig

Former Dean of Columbia University Law School and co-chair of the university’s task force combatting antisemitism David M. Schizer drew on his personal experience with antisemitism in his opening statement to the House Education and the Workforce committee.

“A student wearing a shirt with an Israeli flag was pinned against the wall by a protester and told to keep f-ing running when he broke free,” Professor Schizer told the committee, “when I heard this, my first thought was of my grandfather.”

Schizer said his grandfather grew up in Ukraine, “and his grandfather was lynched in a pogrom.”

 A few years later, he said, his grandfather “almost met the same fate.”

“A group of antisemitic thugs put my grandfather up against the wall and were about to shoot him, but he managed to get away,” he said.

Schizer said that the work of the task force combatting antisemitism “has not been easy.”  

“There is a lot to do, and we aren’t yet where we need to be, but we are making real progress,” he said.

“Being a Zionist should not disqualify someone from a dance group or a theater production,” he said, adding, “this sort of pressure, signifying that Jews are only acceptable if they reject a core part of their religion and identity, well, it sounds like old fashioned bigotry to me.”

The task force issued a report to the university recommending four rules governing protests, which Schizer says the university is implementing, and that the task force plans to issue another report in May following additional listening sessions with students “to describe student encounters with antisemitism, discuss definitions of antisemitism, and recommend changes in orientation, student services and student groups.”

Schizer said the task force will issue more reports in the next academic year. 

Columbia President Shafik condemns professor who praised October 7 attack

Columbia University President Minouche Shafik condemned a professor who praised the October 7 attack by Hamas on Israel.

“I do condemn his statement. I am appalled by what he said,” Shafik said in response to a question from Rep. Tim Walberg. “He has been spoken to.”

The day after the Hamas attack, Columbia professor Joseph Massad described the brutal terror attack as a “stunning victory” in an  online article .

Shafik said Massad is no longer chairing an academic review committee at Columbia. 

Shafik says professor who called Hamas attack "awesome" was removed as committee chair but later walks back answer

From CNN's Elisabeth Buchwald

Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik called Columbia University's response to tenured professor Joseph Massad, who a day after the October 7 attack penned a piece online that labeled it "awesome," is unacceptable.

Columbia's president, Minouche Shafik, said Massad had been "spoken to" by members of his department of Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies. Shafik said she did not participate in those discussions.

She declined to say if any further disciplinary actions were taken but said he has "not repeated anything like that ever since." She confirmed Massad is still on the Columbia faculty but was unsure if he's currently teaching.

Massad is still listed as chair of the Academic Review Committee on a Columbia site. In a prior line of questioning Shafik said that "he is no longer chair of that committee and does not have a leadership role."

Stefanik later pointed out the site that still says Massad chairs the committee. Shafik replied that she would "like to confirm that" and she was "not sure" if he had been removed.

Columbia and Massad didn't immediately respond to CNN's request for comment. 

David Greenwald, the co-chair of the board of trustees at Columbia, told Stefanik Massad's comments were "abhorrent" and he should be removed from the position.

Columbia officials unequivocally say calls for genocide of Jews violate code of conduct

All four Columbia officials testifying before Congress unequivocally stated that calls for the genocide of Jews violate the university’s code of conduct.

Rep. Suzanne Bonamici asked Columbia President Minouche Shafik, board co-chairs David Greenwald and Claire Shipman and David Schizer, co-chair of a task force on antisemitism, for a simple yes or no response. All four said “yes,” calls for the genocide of Jews would violate Columbia’s code of conduct.

The response offered a stark contrast to the lawyerly answers that university presidents provided during the December hearing before the same committee. That moment went viral, sparking an uproar that eventually contributed to the ousters of the presidents of Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania.

Of course, the Columbia officials had the advantage of having months to prepare for that question.

Days after the December hearing, Columbia issued a statement saying: “Calls for genocide against the Jewish community or any other group are abhorrent, inconsistent with our values and against our rules.” 

"I am not satisfied with where Columbia is," board co-chair says

Claire Shipman, co-chair of Columbia University’s board of trustees, said it is “difficult and heartbreaking” to hear members of the university community feel unsafe.

“I feel this current climate on our campus viscerally. It’s unacceptable. I can tell you plainly that I am not satisfied with where Columbia is at this moment,” Shipman said. “As co-chair of the Board, I bear responsibility for that.”

The Columbia official noted that the university shut its gates for demonstrations and backed the decision to invite the New York City Police department onto campus for the first time since 1968.

“The last six months on our campus have served as an extreme pressure test. Our systems were not equipped to manage the unfolding situation,” Shipman said.

Shipman added that Columbia plans to continue to hold people accountable.

“We are far from done. I am outraged by the vile sentiments I continue to hear by those who ignore our rules,” she said. 

Please enable JavaScript for a better experience.

Human Development and Education

The Master’s in Education (Ed.M.) prepares students with the skills needed to change the world through education. HGSE’s Ed.M. centers on three pillars of study: Foundations, which focus on core skills and knowledge; Programs, which focus on specific areas of practice; and Concentrations, which are opportunities to deepen contextual knowledge. Together, these pillars empower students to create transformative learning at every level and in every role. The Human Development and Education (HDE) Program prepares students to understand and support the unique needs and healthy growth of all learners — whether you intend to explore a direct service role, start a nonprofit organization, engage in clinical or counseling work, or pursue doctoral research.

Columbia Leaders Grilled at Antisemitism Hearing Over Faculty Comments

The university’s president, Nemat Shafik, agreed that some professors had crossed the line as she testified before House lawmakers on questions of student safety and free speech.

• Share full article

Nicholas Fandos ,  Stephanie Saul and Sharon Otterman

Nicholas Fandos and Stephanie Saul reported from New York. Sharon Otterman reported from the Capitol hearing room.

The president of Columbia spent the day on defense.

The president of Columbia said the university had suspended 15 students. She promised that one visiting professor “will never work at Columbia again.”

And when she was grilled over whether she would remove another professor from his leadership position, she appeared to make a decision right there on Capitol Hill: “I think I would, yes.”

The president, Nemat Shafik, disclosed the disciplinary details, which are usually confidential, as part of an all-out effort on Wednesday to persuade a House committee investigating Columbia that she was taking serious action to combat a wave of antisemitism following the Israel-Hamas war.

In nearly four hours of testimony before the Republican-led Committee on Education and the Workforce, Dr. Shafik conceded that Columbia had initially been overwhelmed by an outbreak of campus protests. But she said its leaders now agreed that some had used antisemitic language and that certain contested phrases — like “from the river to the sea” — might warrant discipline.

“I promise you, from the messages I’m hearing from students, they are getting the message that violations of our policies will have consequences,” Dr. Shafik said.

Testifying alongside her, Claire Shipman, the co-chair of Columbia’s board of trustees, made the point bluntly. “We have a moral crisis on our campus,” she said.

Republicans seemed skeptical. But Dr. Shafik’s conciliatory tone offered the latest measure of just how much universities have changed their approach toward campus protests over the last few months.

Many schools were initially hesitant to take strong steps limiting freedom of expression cherished on their campuses. But with many Jewish students, faculty and alumni raising alarms, and with the federal government investigating dozens of schools, some administrators have tried to take more assertive steps to control their campuses.

With 5,000 Jewish students and an active protest movement for the Palestinian cause, Columbia has been among the most scrutinized. Jewish students have described being verbally and even physically harassed, while demonstrators have clashed with administrators over limits to where and when they can assemble.

In bending toward House Republicans in Washington, Dr. Shafik may have further divided her New York City campus, where students had pitched tents and set up a “Gaza Solidarity Encampment” early on Wednesday in open violation of university demonstration policies. Activists have rejected charges of antisemitism, and say they are speaking out for Palestinians, tens of thousands of whom have been killed by Israel’s invasion of Gaza.

Sheldon Pollock, a retired Columbia professor who helps lead Columbia’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors, said Dr. Shafik had been “bulldozed and bullied” into saying things she would regret.

“What happened to the idea of academic freedom?” Dr. Pollock asked. “I don’t think that phrase was used even once.”

Dr. Shafik, who took her post in July 2023 after a career in education and international agencies, did repeatedly defend the university’s commitment to free speech. But she said administrators “cannot and should not tolerate abuse of this privilege” when it puts others at risk.

Her comments stood in contrast to testimony last December by the presidents of the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard. Appearing before the same House committee, they offered terse, lawyerly answers and struggled to answer whether students should be punished if they called for the genocide of Jews. The firestorm that followed helped hasten their ousters.

Dr. Shafik missed that earlier hearing because of a preplanned international trip. She made clear on Wednesday she was not about to make similar mistakes.

Asked the same question, about whether calls for genocide violate Columbia’s code of conduct, Dr. Shafik answered in the affirmative — “Yes, it does” — along with the other Columbia leaders at the hearing.

Dr. Shafik explained that the university had suspended two student groups, Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace, because they repeatedly violated its policies on demonstrations.

She also seemed more willing than the leaders of Harvard or Penn to condemn and potentially discipline students and faculty who use language like “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” Some people believe the phrase calls for the elimination of the state of Israel, while its proponents say it is an aspirational call for Palestinian freedom.

“We have some disciplinary cases ongoing around that language,” she said. “We have specified that those kinds of chants should be restricted in terms of where they happen.”

Much of the hearing, though, focused on faculty members, not students.

Under persistent questioning from Republicans, Dr. Shafik went into surprising detail about disciplinary procedures against university professors. She noted that Columbia has about 4,700 faculty members and vowed that there would be “consequences” for employees who “make remarks that cross the line in terms of antisemitism.”

So far, Dr. Shafik said, five faculty members had been removed from the classroom or dismissed in recent months for comments stemming from the war. Dr. Shafik said that Mohamed Abdou, a visiting professor who drew ire for showing support for Hamas on social media, “is grading his students’ papers and will never teach at Columbia again.” Dr. Abdou did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The president also disclosed that the university was investigating Joseph Massad, a professor of Middle Eastern studies, who used the word “ awesome ” to describe the Oct. 7 attack led by Hamas that Israel says killed 1,200 people.

Dr. Shafik and other leaders denounced his work in striking terms. But Dr. Shafik struggled to state clearly, when questioned, whether Dr. Massad would be removed from his position leading a university panel.

“Will you make the commitment to remove him as chair?” Representative Elise Stefanik, Republican of New York, asked her during one fast-paced exchange.

Dr. Shafik replied cautiously, “I think that would be — I think, I would, yes.”

In an email on Wednesday, Dr. Massad said he had not watched the hearing but had seen some clips. He accused Republicans on the committee of distorting his writing and said it was “unfortunate” that Columbia officials had not defended him.

Dr. Massad said it was also “news to me” that he was the subject of a Columbia inquiry. He noted that he was already scheduled to cycle out of his leadership role at the end of the spring semester.

Dr. Shafik’s words deeply worried some supporters of academic freedom.

“We are witnessing a new era of McCarthyism where a House Committee is using college presidents and professors for political theater,” said Irene Mulvey, the president of the American Association of University Professors. “They are pushing an agenda that will ultimately damage higher education and the robust exchanges of ideas it is founded upon.”

Democrats on the House committee uniformly denounced antisemitism, but repeatedly accused Republicans of trying to weaponize a fraught moment for elite universities like Columbia, seeking to undermine them over longstanding political differences.

When Representative Bobby Scott of Virginia, the committee’s top ranking Democrat, tried to enlist Ms. Shipman to agree that the committee should be investigating a wide range of bias around race, sex and gender, she resisted.

“We have a specific problem on our campus, so I can speak from what I know, and that is rampant antisemitism,” she said.

Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, one of only two Muslim women in Congress, pushed back on Dr. Shafik from the left, questioning what the university was doing to help students who were doxxed over their activism for the Palestinian cause or faced anti-Arab sentiment.

Dr. Shafik said the university had assembled resources to help targeted students.

By the end of the hearing, Republicans began to fact-check her claims, drawing from thousands of pages of documents the university handed over as part of the committee’s investigation.

Representative Virginia Foxx , Republican of North Carolina and the committee’s chairwoman, said that several of the student suspensions Dr. Shafik described had already been lifted and argued that students were still not taking the university’s policies seriously.

In a statement after the hearing, Ms. Stefanik said she likewise found Dr. Shafik’s assurances unpersuasive.

“If it takes a member of Congress to force a university president to fire a pro-terrorist, antisemitic faculty chair,” she said, “then Columbia University leadership is failing Jewish students and its academic mission.

Anemona Hartocollis contributed reporting.

Alan Blinder

Here are our takeaways from the hearing.

Four Columbia University officials, including the university’s president and the leaders of its board, went before Congress on Wednesday to try to extinguish criticism that the campus in New York has become a hub of antisemitic behavior and thought.

Over more than three hours, the Columbia leaders appeared to avoid the kind of caustic, viral exchange that laid the groundwork for the recent departures of the presidents of Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania , whose own appearances before the same House committee ultimately turned into public relations disasters.

Here are the takeaways from the hearing on Capitol Hill.

With three words, Columbia leaders neutralized the question that tripped up officials from other campuses.

In December, questions about whether calling for the genocide of Jewish people violated university disciplinary policies led the presidents of Harvard, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Pennsylvania to offer caveat-laden, careful answers that ignited fierce criticism .

The topic surfaced early in Wednesday’s hearing about Columbia, and the Columbia witnesses did not hesitate when they answered.

“Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Columbia’s code of conduct?” asked Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Democrat of Oregon.

“Yes, it does,” replied David Greenwald, the co-chair of Columbia’s board of trustees.

“Yes, it does,” Claire Shipman, the board’s other co-chair, said next.

“Yes, it does,” Nemat Shafik, Columbia’s president, followed.

“Yes, it does,” said David Schizer, a longtime Columbia faculty member who is helping to lead a university task force on antisemitism.

To some lawmakers, Columbia’s effort in recent months remains lacking.

Even before the hearing started, Columbia officials have said that its procedures were not up to the task of managing the tumult that has unfolded in the months after the Hamas-led attack on Oct. 7.

In a written submission to the committee, Dr. Shafik, who became Columbia’s president last year, said she was “personally frustrated to find that Columbia’s policies and structures were sometimes unable to meet the moment.”

She added the university’s disciplinary system was far more accustomed to dealing with infractions around matters like alcohol use and academic misconduct. But Columbia officials have lately toughened rules around protests and scrutinized students and faculty members alike.

Some Republican lawmakers pressed the university to take more aggressive action.

Representative Tim Walberg, Republican of Michigan, focused on Joseph Massad, a Columbia professor he accused of glorifying the Oct. 7 attack. Mr. Walberg demanded to know whether Ms. Shipman and Mr. Greenwald would approve tenure for Dr. Massad today.

Both said they would not, prompting Mr. Walberg to retort, “Then why is he still in the classroom?"

In an email on Wednesday, Professor Massad said he had not watched the hearing but had seen some clips. He accused Mr. Walberg of distorting his writing and said it was “unfortunate” that Columbia officials had not defended him.

Professor Massad said it was also “news to me” that he was the subject of a Columbia inquiry, as Dr. Shafik said he was.

Dr. Shafik, who noted that Columbia has about 4,700 faculty members, vowed in the hearing that there would be “consequences” for employees who “make remarks that cross the line in terms of antisemitism.”

So far, Dr. Shafik said, five people have been removed from the classroom or ousted from Columbia in recent months. Dr. Shafik said that Mohamed Abdou, a visiting professor who drew the ire of Representative Elise Stefanik, Republican of New York, “is grading his students’ papers and will never teach at Columbia again.” Dr. Abdou did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Columbia’s strategy before Congress: Signal collaboration, and even give some ground.

Congressional witnesses can use an array of approaches to get through a hearing, from defiance to genuflection. Columbia leaders’ approach on Wednesday tilted toward the latter as they faced a proceeding titled, “Columbia in Crisis: Columbia University’s Response to Antisemitism.”

Ms. Shipman told lawmakers that she was “grateful” for “the spotlight that you are putting on this ancient hatred,” and Mr. Greenwald said the university appreciated “the opportunity to assist the committee in its important effort to examine antisemitism on college campuses.”

But there were moments when university leaders offered more than Washington-ready rhetoric.

When Ms. Stefanik pressed Dr. Shafik to commit to removing Professor Massad from a leadership post, the president inhaled, her hands folded before her on the witness table.

“I think that would be — I think, I would, yes. Let me come back with yes,” Dr. Shafik responded after a few seconds. (After the hearing, a university spokesman said Professor Massad’s term as chair of an academic review panel was already set to end after this semester.)

Representative Kevin Kiley, Republican of California, effectively asked Dr. Shafik to draw a red line for the faculty.

“Would you be willing to make just a statement right now to any members of the faculty at your university that if they engage in antisemitic words or conduct that they should find another place to work?” Mr. Kiley asked.

“I would be happy to make a statement that anyone, any faculty member, at Columbia who behaves in an antisemitic way or in any way a discriminatory way should find somewhere else to go,” Dr. Shafik replied.

Even though the conciliatory tactics regularly mollified lawmakers, they could deepen discontent on campus.

Republicans are already planning another hearing.

The hearing that contributed to the exits of the Harvard and Penn presidents emboldened the Republicans who control the House committee that convened on Wednesday.

Even before the proceeding with Columbia leaders, they had already scheduled a hearing for next month with top officials from the school systems in New York City, Montgomery County, Md., and Berkeley, Calif.

Stephanie Saul and Anemona Hartocollis contributed reporting.

Advertisement

Anusha Bayya

Riley Chodak, 22, is graduating in a month and said she feels like her senior-year college experience has been snatched away from her because of the atmosphere on campus. “The fact that our campus is blocked off — it feels a little bit like a war zone here,” the Ohio native said. She said she believes the university is “cracking down on anyone who's trying to show anyone solidarity.”

Sharon Otterman

And we are adjourned! No single standout moment. This hearing was perhaps most remarkable for how much the Columbia representatives agreed with the committee that antisemitism was a serious problem on its campus.

It remains to be seen how Columbia’s faculty will respond to their president's pledges to crack down on Joseph Massad and other tenured faculty that the committee targeted as antisemitic and demanded disciplinary action be taken against.

In her closing statement, Representative Virginia Foxx is using some of the thousands of documents she got from Columbia to fact check some of their remarks. She says it was misleading for Columbia to say 15 students have been suspended after Oct. 7. She said only three students were, for antisemitic conduct, and those were lifted. She also says the only two students who remain suspended are the two Jewish students who were accused of attacking a protest with a foul-smelling substance.

Mimi Gupta, 45, a Columbia grad student, was in the Multicultural Center on campus where President Shafik’s testimony is being broadcast on the big screen. “The president of Columbia is just getting eviscerated," she said.

“Senators, they just are asking really leading questions, talking over her and the students are just gasping and are shocked,” she said. Some in the audience occasionally piped up, shouting towards the screen when they felt that those grilling Shafik were being particularly hostile.

Stephanie Saul

Who are the Columbia professors mentioned in the hearing?

Several Columbia faculty members — Joseph Andoni Massad, Katherine Franke and Mohamed Abdou — were in the spotlight at Wednesday’s hearing before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

All three had taken pro-Palestinian stances, and lawmakers grilled university officials over how they responded to what Columbia’s President Nemat Shafik agreed were “unacceptable” comments by the faculty members.

At the hearing, Dr. Shafik divulged that two of the professors — Dr. Massad and Ms. Franke — were under investigation for making “discriminatory remarks,” and said that Dr. Abdou “will never work at Columbia again.” Such responses drew a sharp rebuke from some professors and the American Association of University Professors, which said she capitulated to political grandstanding and, in the process, violated established tenets of academic freedom.

“We are witnessing a new era of McCarthyism where a House committee is using college presidents and professors for political theater,” said Irene Mulvey, national president of the AAUP. She added, “President Shafik’s public naming of professors under investigation to placate a hostile committee sets a dangerous precedent for academic freedom and has echoes of the cowardice often displayed during the McCarthy era.”

Dr. Massad, who is of Palestinian Christian descent, was the focus of Representative Tim Walberg’s questioning. He teaches modern Arab politics and intellectual history at Columbia, where he also received his Ph.D. in political science.

Long known for his anti-Israel positions, he published a controversial article in The Electronic Intifada last October, in the wake of the Hamas attack, describing it as a “resistance offensive” staged in retaliation to Israel’s settler-colonies near the Gaza border.

The piece drew a visceral response and demands for his dismissal in a petition by a Columbia student that was signed by tens of thousands of people. The petition specifically criticized Dr. Massad’s use of the word “awesome” to describe the scene of the attack.

Dr. Massad’s posture has drawn controversy for years. When he was awarded tenure in 2009, 14 Columbia professors expressed their concern in a letter to the provost. Generally, professors with tenure face a much higher bar for termination than those without the status.

More recently, however, professors nationally have rallied to support him, emphasizing his academic right to voice his opinion.

In a statement after the hearing, Dr. Massad said that the House committee members had mischaracterized his article. Mr. Walberg said that Dr. Massad had said Hamas’s murder of Jews was “awesome, astonishing, astounding and incredible.”

“I certainly said nothing of the sort,” Dr. Massad said.

In testimony responding to questions from Mr. Walberg, a Michigan Republican, Dr. Shafik said that Dr. Massad had been removed from a leadership role at the university, where he headed an academic review panel.

But Dr. Massad said in an email that he had not been notified by Columbia that he was under investigation, adding that he had been previously scheduled to end his chairmanship of the academic review committee at the end of the semester, a statement that a spokesman for Columbia verified after the hearing.

Dr. Massad said it was “unfortunate” that Dr. Shafik and other university leaders “would condemn fabricated statements that I never made when all three of them should have corrected the record to show that I never said or wrote such reprehensible statements.”

Katherine Franke, a law professor at Columbia, was also mentioned in the hearing for her activist role and a comment that “all Israeli students who served in the I.D.F. are dangerous and shouldn’t be on campus,” referring to the Israel Defense Forces.

Ms. Franke recently wrote a piece in The Nation raising questions about academic freedom at Columbia, where she has taught since 1999.

In response to the hearing, Ms. Franke said she had made a comment in a radio program that some students who served in the I.D.F. had harassed others on campus, a reference to an incident in which pro-Palestinian protesters said they were sprayed with a noxious chemical.

“I do not believe, nor did I say, that ‘all Israeli students who served in the I.D.F. are dangerous and should not be on campus,’” she said.

Mohamed Abdou was also named in the hearing. Dr. Abdou was hired as a visiting scholar for the Spring 2024 term, and was teaching a course called “ Decolonial-Queerness and Abolition. ”

A biography on Columbia’s website describes Dr. Abdou as “a North African-Egyptian Muslim anarchist interdisciplinary activist-scholar of Indigenous, Black, critical race and Islamic studies, as well as gender, sexuality, abolition and decolonization.”

Representative Elise Stefanik asked why he was hired even after his social media post on Oct. 11 that read, “I’m with Hamas & Hezbollah & Islamic Jihad.” Dr. Shafik said, “He will never work at Columbia again. Dr. Abdou did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Sheldon Pollock, a retired Columbia professor who serves on the executive committee of Columbia’s American Association of University Professors chapter, called such comments about specific professors “deeply worrying,” adding that he thought Dr. Shafik was “bullied by these people into saying things I’m sure she regrets.”

He continued: “What happened to the idea of academic freedom” in today’s testimony? “I don’t think that phrase was used even once.”

A spokesman for Columbia declined to comment on the criticism of Dr. Shafik.

Elise Stefanik is up again. She is trying to get Shafik to condemn “from the River to the Sea” as antisemitic and discipline students for saying it. Shafik says “we are looking at it.”

Annie Karni

Stefanik asked the same question of Claudine Gay, the former president of Harvard University. Gay’s response was that, while she personally thought the language was “abhorrent,” the university embraced “a commitment to free expression even of views that are objectionable, offensive, hateful.”

Several Republicans have now praised the Columbia representatives for giving clear answers to their questions.

Stefanik seems to have pushed Shafik into committing to remove a professor, Joseph Massad, who has become a focus of the hearing because of his statements celebrating the Hamas attacks, as chair of the academic review committee. Shafik appeared flustered by the line of questioning, and confused about his current status. But she answered “yes” when asked if she would commit to removing him as chair.

“He was spoken to by his head of department and his dean.” “And what was he told?” “I was not in those conversations, I think —” “But you’re not what he was told —” “That language was unacceptable.” “What was he told? What was he told?” “That that language was unacceptable.” “And were there any other enforcement actions taken? Any other disciplinary actions taken?” “In his case? He has not repeated anything like that ever since.” “Does he need to repeat stating that the massacre of Israeli civilians was awesome? Does he need to repeat his participation in an unauthorized pro-Hamas demonstration on April 4? Has he been terminated as chair?” “Congresswoman, I want to confirm the facts before getting back to you.” “I know you confirmed that he was under investigation.” “Yes, I can confirm that.” “Did you confirm he was still the chair?” “I need to confirm that with you. I’m —” “Well, let me ask you this: Will you make the commitment to remove him as chair?” “I think that would be — I think, I would, yes. Let me come back with yes.”

Representative Elise Stefanik is challenging President Shafik after she had said in earlier testimony there had not been anti-Jewish protests on campus. Now, under questioning, she acknowledges anti-Jewish things were said at protests.

Overall, Republicans on this committee are pushing Columbia to take a tough stance on defining what antisemitism is, and include anti-Zionist speech, something it has tried not to do. It doesn’t have an official definition of the term.

Representative Aaron Bean, a Republican of Florida, congratulates the Columbia witnesses, saying they did better than the presidents of Harvard and Penn at their hearing in December. They were able to say they were against antisemitism, but he says that there is still fear on campus among Jewish students. “You are saying the right things.”

While there have been some tense moments in the hearing, there has not yet been the kind of viral moment related to the university’s inadequate response to antisemitism that House Republicans were able to create in the infamous hearing with the presidents of Harvard, University of Pennsylvania and M.I.T. But that exchange, which ultimately lead to the ouster of two Ivy League presidents, came at the tail end of a session that lasted four and a half hours.

Here are some of the recent antisemitism allegations against Columbia.

The House committee investigating Columbia University for antisemitism has claimed that “an environment of pervasive antisemitism has been documented at Columbia for more than two decades” and that the administration has not done enough in response.

Here are some of the recent allegations :

On Oct. 11, 2023, a Columbia student who is Israeli was beaten with a stick by a former undergraduate who had been ripping down pictures of Israeli hostages, according to the New York Police Department.

Multiple students say they have been cursed at for being Jewish. One student held up a sign in October that read “Columbia doesn’t care about the safety and well-being of Jewish students.”

Following allegations that two Israeli students released a foul-smelling chemical at a pro-Palestinian demonstration in January, a poster appeared around campus with the image of a blue and white skunk with a Star of David on its back.

Several professors have made antisemitic remarks or expressed support for the Oct. 7 attack, including Joseph Massad, a professor of modern Arab politics, who published an article on Oct. 8 describing the attack with terms such as “awesome” and “astounding.”

Representative Ilhan Omar, Democrat of Minnesota, spoke on behalf of pro-Palestinian students who were suspended or hurt. Shafik said she suspended students after a Resistance 101 event, where people spoke in support of Hamas, because they did not cooperate with the investigation. Omar also asks about an alleged chemical attack on pro-Palestinian protesters. Shafik says she reached out to those students, but that the investigation is still with the police.

Omar, one of just two Muslim women serving in Congress, is grilling Shafik from the left, using her time to ask why pro-Palestinian students on campus were evicted, suspended, harassed and intimidated for their participation in a pro-Palestinian event. Shafik said it was a very serious situation and the students refused to cooperate with the investigation.

Two professors, Joseph Massad and Katherine Franke, are “under investigation for discriminatory remarks,” Shafik says, apparently breaking some news here.

Representative Jamaal Bowman, a Democrat of New York, is trying to make the case for pro-Palestinian students who feel they have a right to express their views, saying that those views aren’t necessarily hateful, even if they make people feel uncomfortable. He’s entering for the record a letter from 600 faculty and students supporting open inquiry on campus.

The hearing is back after a brief recess. The length of the proceedings could prove important, since Claudine Gay, Harvard’s former president, has partly blamed the protracted nature of an exchange during December’s hearing for answers she gave that drew widespread criticism.

Representative Lisa McClain, Republican of Michigan, is drilling down on whether there is a definition on campus for antisemitism. David Schizer, who is a co-chair of the university's task force on antisemitism, calls a New York Times article about how the task force has no definition false. However, the committee has no official definition for antisemitism. He offers his own personal definition to the committee, as does Shafik. “For me personally, any discrimination against people of the Jewish faith is antisemitism,” she said.

Earlier in the hearing, Claire Shipman, co-chair of Columbia's board of trustees, detailed steps Columbia has taken to try to get the tensions under control, including suspending two student groups, Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace.

Columbia has been host to charged protests over Gaza in recent months.

Columbia University has toughened how it handles campus protests since the Hamas attack on Israel on Oct. 7. Here are some of the key moments:

Oct. 12, 2023: Hundreds of protesters gathered at Columbia University for tense pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian demonstrations that caused school administrators to take the then-extraordinary step of closing the campus to the public. The school now closes the campus routinely when protests are scheduled.

Nov. 9, 2023: Columbia suspended two main pro-Palestinian student groups, Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace, after they held an unauthorized student walkout. Administrators said the event had “proceeded despite warnings and contained threatening rhetoric and intimidation” after one person shouted anti-Jewish epithets. Protest organizers said they had tried to silence the person.

Jan. 19, 2024: Pro-Palestinian protesters said that someone sprayed them with a foul-smelling substance at a rally, causing at least eight students to seek medical treatment. Columbia labeled the incident a possible hate crime, barred the alleged perpetrators from campus and opened an investigation. Protest attendees, citing video evidence , say they believe the perpetrators were two students who had been verbally harassing them, but Columbia has given no details about their identities.

Feb. 19, 2024: Columbia announced a new protest policy . Protests are now only permitted in designated “demonstration areas” on weekday afternoons, and require two days’ notice to administrators. First-time violators receive warnings. Repeat violators are brought before a judicial board.

April 5, 2024: The university’s president announces the immediate suspension of multiple students accused of playing a role in organizing a March 24 event, “ Resistance 101 ,” at which the presenters spoke openly in support of Hamas and other U.S.-designated terrorist organizations. The students were told they would be evicted from student housing.

Representative Burgess Owens, Republican of Utah, is drilling down on an apparent double standard at Columbia. He suggests that it would not be tolerated for a moment if people called an attack on Black people “awesome” and “stunning” but that it has been acceptable for faculty to say about Jewish students for decades.

Representative Jim Banks, Republican of Indiana, is asking about a glossary given out at the School of Social Work that lists a term that appears to classify Jews as white, and therefore privileged. Shafik says it is not an official document. He also asks why the word "folks" is spelled "folx" in the document, a progressive quirk. "They can't spell?" Shafik says, getting an audience chuckle.

Anemona Hartocollis

Representative Gregorio Sablan, a Democrat from the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Island, seized on the fact that Shafik and other Columbia officials had been cut off, and offered them a chance to complete their answers. Shafik said that many of the questionable appointments “were made in the past in a different era, and that era is done.”

Columbia University has been on strict lockdown all week, and today is no exception. Barricades have been erected, numerous police officers are stationed at both main entrances to the campus and no one is being allowed to enter without a Columbia University ID. Protesters have assembled today on Broadway wearing shirts with the words “Revolution Nothing Less!” on the front.

Nicholas Fandos

Elise Stefanik has taken aim at college presidents on elite campuses.

She may not be a committee chair, but perhaps no single Republican lawmaker has done more to exert pressure on elite universities since the Israel-Gaza war began than Representative Elise Stefanik of New York.

Ms. Stefanik was already a rising star within her party, the top-ranking woman in Republican House leadership and considered a potential presidential running mate when the House Education and Workforce Committee began investigating antisemitism on college campuses. But her grilling of the presidents of Harvard, University of Pennsylvania and M.I.T. at a December hearing became a defining moment .

Ms. Stefanik pressed the leaders to say whether students would violate their universities’ codes of conduct if they called for the genocide of Jews. Their dispassionate, lawyerly answers about context and free speech set off a firestorm that ultimately helped cost two of them, Claudine Gay of Harvard and Elizabeth Magill of the Penn, their jobs.

The exchange also helped win Ms. Stefanik widespread attention and rare plaudits from grudging liberals, who typically revile her for embracing former President Donald J. Trump and his lies about the 2020 election. On Wednesday, she was named one of Time’s 100 most influential people of 2024.

Ms. Stefanik is a graduate of Harvard herself. When she first won her seat in 2014, she was the youngest woman ever elected to the House of Representatives. She beat a centrist Democrat, and in the early days of her career, she took on more moderate stances.

These days, she describes herself as “ultra MAGA” and “proud of it .”

Ms. Stefanik, 39, has said she was “stunned” by the responses of the presidents during the last hearing. She plans to reprise that role on Wednesday, grilling the president of Columbia University, Nemat Shafik, and members of its board of trustees.

In an opinion piece in The New York Post before the hearing, Ms. Stefanik said antisemitism at Columbia had become “egregious and commonplace.” She charged Dr. Shafik with failing “to ensure Jewish students are able to attend school in a safe environment.”

Shafik emphasizes that Columbia has ramped up disciplinary proceedings.

In her opening remarks, Nemat Shafik, president of Columbia University, gave an idea of how pervasive complaints of antisemitism have become since Oct. 7, adding that Columbia had been aggressive in pursuing disciplinary action.

Dr. Shafik said that the disciplinary process at Columbia, which has about 5,000 Jewish students, typically handles 1,000 student-conduct cases a year. Most of those are related to typical campus infractions, such as academic dishonesty, the use of alcohol and illegal substances, and one-on-one student complaints.

“Today, student-misconduct cases are far outpacing last year,” said Dr. Shafik, who goes by Minouche.

She did not provide an exact number of complaints this year, and did not address what portion of the increase had to do with protests related to the Israel-Hamas war. But she implied that it was significant.

The university’s current policies were “not designed to address the types of events and protests that followed the Oct. 7 attack,” Dr. Shafik said.

The task of combating antisemitism provided a vehicle for underscoring why colleges and universities matter, she said. Antisemitism had been a scourge for some 2,000 years, she said. “One would hope that by the 21st century, antisemitism would have been related to the dustbin of history, but it has not.”

To deal with it, Dr. Shafik said, she would look toward periods “where antisemitism has been in abeyance.”

“Those periods were characterized by enlightened leadership, inclusive cultures and clarity about rights and obligations,” she said, adding that she was committed to fostering those values at Columbia.

Who are Claire Shipman and David Greenwald?

Testifying alongside Nemat Shafik, the Columbia University president, are the two co-chairs of Columbia’s board of trustees, Claire Shipman and David Greenwald . Like Dr. Shafik, they are relatively new to their roles.

Ms. Shipman is a journalist and author who spent three decades working in television news for ABC, NBC and CNN, and who now writes books about women’s leadership and confidence. A graduate of Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs and Columbia College, she joined the board of trustees in 2013. She became co-chair in September.

Mr. Greenwald is a corporate lawyer who was chairman of the law firm Fried Frank before stepping down earlier this year. He has also worked as a deputy general counsel for Goldman Sachs. A graduate of Columbia Law School, he also serves on other nonprofit boards, including for NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital. He was elected to the 21-member board in 2018, and become co-chair in September.

Both were on the presidential search committee, which oversaw the process of selecting Dr. Shafik.

David Schizer, a former dean of Columbia Law School and a co-chair of the school’s antisemitism task force , is also testifying. He was announced as an additional witness Monday.

The New York Times

Read Nemat Shafik’s prepared opening remarks.

In her prepared opening statement, Nemat Shafik, the president of Columbia University, laid out ways the university has been responding to antisemitism on campus.

Here’s the statement.

Nemat shafik is new to columbia, but not to high-profile settings..

Columbia’s president, Nemat Shafik, is no stranger to handling crises.

As a young economist at the World Bank, she advised governments in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall. As a deputy managing director at the International Monetary Fund, she worked to stabilize national economies during the European debt crisis, and oversaw loans to Middle East countries during the uprisings of the Arab Spring.

Now, as the first female president of Columbia University, Dr. Shafik, who goes by Minouche, finds herself at the center of American political tensions over the war in Gaza and intense criticism over Columbia’s efforts to counter antisemitism.

Dr. Shafik’s supporters hope that her experience — and also what they describe as her cut-to-the-chase decision-making style — will help her navigate the kind of questioning that tripped up her peers from Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania in December.

Born in Alexandria, Egypt, Dr. Shafik’s family relocated to the United States in the 1960s after their home and property in Egypt were nationalized, she has said in interviews.

She lived in Savannah, Ga., as a child, and in Egypt as a teenager, returning to the United States to get her bachelor’s degree at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. She received her Ph.D. in economics from St. Antony’s College, at Oxford University.

After leaving the I.M.F. in 2014, she was a deputy governor of the Bank of England before returning to academia as president of the London School of Economics and Political Science in 2017. She started at Columbia in July . Her response to campus tensions sparked by the Israel-Hamas war has been her first big test.

Read Representative Foxx’s opening remarks.

Virginia Foxx, who chairs the House Education and the Workforce Committee, listed the reasons for calling Wednesday’s hearing on campus antisemitism in her prepared opening remarks.

Harvard Youth Poll

• Introduction

A national poll released today by the Institute of Politics (IOP) at Harvard Kennedy School indicates that among 18-to-29-year-olds nationwide, more than half of young Americans say they will definitely be voting in the Presidential election this Fall. But findings show that among those likely voters, levels of support varied significantly among different subgroups.

The poll also finds:

• Broad support for a permanent ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war;
• Economic concerns continue to be top of mind for young voters;
• Confidence in public institutions continues to decline.

Since 2000, the Harvard Public Opinion Project (HPOP) has provided the most comprehensive look at young Americans’ political opinions and voting trends. It provides essential insight into the concerns of young Americans at a time when the nation is confronting numerous challenges both at home and abroad. President Kennedy once said, "It is a time for a new generation of leadership, to cope with new problems and new opportunities." The IOP is preparing a new generation of political leaders to confront these very challenges and gain the ability to successfully lead in today’s complicated political landscape. Identifying areas of concern through the Harvard Youth Poll lets tomorrow’s political leaders get started on ideas, strategies, and solutions, and allows them to decide today what the next generation of political leadership needs to look like.

The Spring 2024 Harvard Youth Poll surveyed 2,010 young Americans between 18- and 29 years old nationwide, and was conducted between March 14-21, 2024.

"Young people today have clear concerns about where our country is headed," said IOP Director Setti Warren . "From worries about the economy, foreign policy, immigration, and climate, young people across the country are paying attention and are increasingly prepared to make their voices heard at the ballot box this November."

"As the Biden/Trump rematch takes shape, we see strong levels of engagement and interest in voting among young Americans," said John Della Volpe, IOP Polling Director . "Make no mistake, this is a different youth electorate than we saw in 2020 and 2022, and young voters are motivated by different things. Economic issues are top of mind, housing is a major concern—and the gap between young men's and young women's political preferences is pronounced."

"Young Americans are emerging from a pandemic that has tested our trust in democratic institutions and the bonds that unite us," said Anil Cacodcar, Student Chair of the Harvard Public Opinion Project . "Despite this, young Americans are more ready than ever to engage with these institutions to push for the change we want to see in the world."

Ten key findings from the 47th in the biannual series are below.

• Key Takeaways

Among young Americans under 30, President Biden leads former President Trump by eight percentage points; among likely voters, Biden's lead expands to 19 points.

Approximately half (53%) of young Americans indicate they will "definitely be voting" in the 2024 general election for president. Young Americans' interest in voting in 2024 is now on par with Harvard Youth Poll data from 2020, which indicated that 54% would likely vote.

If the presidential election were held today, President Biden would outperform former President Trump among both registered (50% Biden, 37% Trump) and likely young voters under 30 (56% Biden, 37% Trump). When there is no voter screen (i.e., all young adults 18-29), the race narrows to single digits, 45% for President Biden, 37% for former President Trump, with 16 percent undecided.

Among the 1,051 "likely voters" in our sample, we found significant differences in support levels based on gender, age, race/ethnicity, and education levels, among other subgroups. For example, among likely young voters:

• President Biden's lead among young men is six points; among young women his lead is 33 points;
• President Biden's lead among 18-24 year-olds is 14 points, and among 25-29 year-olds it is 26 points;
• President Biden's lead among white voters is 3 points; among non-white voters his lead is 43 points;
• President Biden's lead among college students is 23 points; he leads by 47 points among college graduates. The race is even among those not in college and without a four-year degree.

For context, at this stage in the 2020 election, the Harvard Youth Poll showed Biden leading Trump by 23 points among all young adults (51%-28%) and by 30 points (60%-30%) among likely voters under 30.

One area where former President Trump has an advantage over Biden is enthusiasm. Three-quarters (76%) of Trump voters say they enthusiastically support their candidate, while 44% of Biden voters say the same.

A guilty verdict in any of former President Trump's trials could significantly impact the youth vote. If Trump is found guilty, we find that:

• Biden's lead among all young Americans increases from 8 to 18 points;
• Biden's lead among young registered voters increases from 13 to 21 points;
• Biden's lead among young likely voters increases from 19 to 28 points.

In a hypothetical scenario, when Biden and Trump were joined on the ballot by independent and third party candidates Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Cornel West, and Jill Stein, Biden would still win the youth vote but with smaller margins.

Support for a permanent ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war is 5-to-1 in favor; majorities of young Americans sympathize with the Israeli and the Palestinian people.

While only 38% of young Americans tell us that they are following the news about the war between Israel and Hamas very or somewhat closely, the proportion rises among registered voters (45%) and those most likely to vote in November (52%). Overall, we find that Democrats (49%) are more likely to follow this news closely compared to Republicans (32%), and those with a college degree (50%) are more likely to be following these events compared to current college students (39%) and those that never attended (32%).

When young Americans are asked whether or not they believe Israel's response so far to the October 7 attack by Hamas has been justified, a plurality indicates that they don't know (45%). About a fifth (21%) report that Israel's response was justified with 32% believing it was not justified. Across most subgroups, more young Americans say the actions of the Israeli government were unjustified than justified. Republicans see Israel's actions as justified (36% justified, 16% not justified), while Democrats (14% justified, 44% not justified) and independents (19% justified, 30% not justified) feel the opposite is true.

Young Americans support a permanent ceasefire in Gaza by a five-to-one margin (51% support, 10% oppose). No major subgroup of young voters opposes such action.

Asked whether or not they sympathize with various groups involved in the war, we found that majorities of young Americans hold sympathy for the Israeli (52% sympathize) and the Palestinian people (56% sympathize), while they have far less sympathy for their governments (29% sympathize with the Israeli government; 32% with the Palestinian government). Seventeen percent (17%) expressed sympathy toward Hamas; for those who were presented with the information in a split sample that Hamas was an Islamist militant group, sympathy dipped to 13%.

Most young Americans believe there's a crisis at the Southern border; at the same time, youth believe immigrants improve America's culture.

A majority (53%) of young Americans—including at least a plurality of every significant subgroup—believe that the United States is experiencing an immigration crisis at the Southern border; only 16% disagree with this notion, while 29% neither agree nor disagree. Despite this, young Americans oppose construction of a border wall (36% support, 45% oppose) and believe by wide margins that:

• Immigrants improve the culture of the United States (50% agree; 17% disagree);

And they disagree by similarly strong margins that:

• Immigrants increase crime in my community. (21% agree, 45% disagree); and
• Immigrants are taking jobs that should go to Americans instead. (24% agree, 48% disagree).

Only 12% of young Americans say they would be uncomfortable if an immigrant moved next door to them. A solid majority (60%) of young Americans have had classmates who have been immigrants, 46% have friends who are immigrants, 41% have had immigrant coworkers, and 40% have had immigrant neighbors. Young Americans who have firsthand experience with immigrants have more favorable views about their impact on society.

After being informed by the U.S. Census Bureau's projection that white Americans will comprise less than half of the U.S. population by approximately 2045, respondents were asked to share their perspectives. A significant majority (60%) expressed a neutral stance, considering the news neither inherently positive nor negative for the country. Among the remaining young Americans, opinions were evenly divided, with 19% viewing it favorably and 18% perceiving it unfavorably.

Only 9% of young Americans say the country is headed in the right direction; economic concerns, along with reproductive freedom, continue to be top of mind for young voters.

Nearly three in five (58%) young Americans believe that the country is "off on the wrong track," and only 9% say that things in the nation are "generally headed in the right direction." An additional 32% say they are unsure. In the Spring 2020 wave, 21% responded that the nation was headed in the right direction; in the Spring 2016 wave, 15% said the same.

In an open-ended question about which national issue concerned them most, we found that about a quarter (27%) of young Americans volunteered something related to the economy. Immigration (9%), foreign policy (8%), and environmental issues followed behind.

President Biden's job approval among all young Americans is 31% (-4 since Fall 2023, +3 since Spring 2023). Vice President Kamala Harris (32% approval) and Democrats in Congress (34% approval) are in a similar position, while Republicans in Congress (24% approval) trail their Democratic colleagues by 10 percentage points.

President Biden's approval on economic issues, except student loan debt, is lower than his approval rating overall:

• 39% Student debt relief
• 33% Ukraine (-4 since Spring 2023)
• 30% Economy (+2 since Spring 2023)
• 25% Gun violence (-2 since Spring 2023)
• 23% Inflation (-1 since Spring 2023)
• 18% Israel-Hamas war

Additionally, we identified 16 prominent areas of concern and asked survey respondents in a series of randomized match-ups which one of two paired issues was more important to them. Again, we found that economic concerns were viewed as more prominent. Inflation, healthcare, housing, and jobs won most match-ups regardless of what they were paired against.

The table below shows the percentage of the time an issue was rated as more important than the issue it was matched against.

The only issue time that inflation did not win its individual match-up was when it was paired with women's reproductive rights. Women's reproductive rights was considered the more important issue, 57% to 43%. A link to the chart of individual match-ups is here .

Young Americans do not support gender-based stereotypes; political ideology more than gender, race, or education, is most predictive of attitudes on this subject.

With increasing attention on culture war issues in media and politics, our students designed a new series of questions to benchmark youth opinions on gender norms, stereotypes, and prejudices.

Overall, we found that the overwhelming majority of youth do not subscribe to these gender-based stereotypes. Still, nevertheless, there are striking differences between how young Democrats, Republicans, and independents view the role of men and women in society.

• Large numbers of Republicans distance themselves from their peers, believing that their generation (69%), and men in particular (61%), are too soft these days. 
• Between a quarter and roughly half of young Republicans also subscribe to beliefs such as women should prioritize children over joining the workforce (26% Republicans, 7% Democrats agree), women's emotions make it more challenging to lead (33% Republicans, 6% Democrats agree), and women are too promiscuous these days (46% Republicans, 14% Democrats agree).

We find that political ideology, more than gender, education, race and ethnicity is more predictive of views related to gender norms in society today.

When we isolate political party and gender we find:

• Nearly identical numbers of young Republican men (46% agree, 21% disagree) and young Republican women (47% agree, 18% disagree) agree that "women are too promiscuous these days;" and
• Most Democratic young men (18% agree, 57% disagree) and women (11% agree, 70% disagree) reject the stereotype.

While young men are turning away from the Democratic party, they remain supportive of basic party tenets such as health insurance being a right and the role the government should play in safeguarding the vulnerable.

For 2024 likely voters, Joe Biden leads among both men (+6) and women (+33). Compared with this stage in the 2020 campaign, Biden's lead among women is nearly identical (was +35 in 2020), but his lead among likely male voters has been dramatically reduced from +26 in 2020 to +6 today. While Democrats still hold a party ID advantage with younger males and females, as the chart below illustrates, Democrats have lost significant ground with young men in the last five years.

• Only five years ago, in 2020, 42% of young men in our poll identified as Democrats and 20% were Republicans (+22 Democratic advantage); in this wave, 32% are Democrats and 29% are Republicans (+3 Democratic advantage). The percentage of independents has remained unchanged at 37% during this period.
• Over the same period, the Democratic advantage among women expanded by six points. In 2020, 43% of young women in our poll identified as Democrats, and 23% were Republicans (+20 Democratic advantage); in this wave, 44% are Democrats, and 18% are Republicans (+26 Democratic advantage).

While party ID and self-identified ideology show younger men shifting from Democrat to Republican and from liberal to conservative—their views on the role of government have not changed as dramatically.

• Today, 60% of young men agree that "basic health insurance is a right for all people, and if someone has no means of paying for it, the government should provide it;" and 64% agreed in 2020.
• Fifty-four percent (54%) agree that "the government should spend more to reduce poverty;" and 56% agreed in 2020.

Over the last five years, we have noted however an attitudinal shift on climate policy. In 2020, 60% of young men agreed that "government should do more to curb climate change, even at the expense of economic growth," while today, agreement is down to 47%.

At the same time, young female opinion grew in favor of more government intervention in two of the three policy areas.

Confidence in public institutions continues to decline. While still the most trusted institution in the survey, faith in the military dropped 10 points last year.

This wave of the youth poll shows the lowest levels of confidence in most public institutions since the survey began. In the last twelve months alone, trust in the U.S. military and the Supreme Court to do the right thing "all" or "most of the time" has fallen by 10 and nine percentage points, respectively.

Only one (the United Nations) of the eight institutions in our survey is more trusted today than in 2015. The level of trust for the UN has increased by 17% over the decade. The remaining institutions saw steep declines:

• Trust in the President has declined by 60% since 2015 (it now stands at 20%);
• Trust in the Supreme Court declined 55% (now at 24%);
• Trust among Wall Street is down 43% (now at 9%);
• Trust in the U.S. military (now at 36%) and the federal government (now at 17%) both declined 38%;
• Trust in Congress is down 34% (now at 12%);
• Trust in the media is down 18% (now at 10%).

One-third of college students are uncomfortable sharing their political views on campus; young Democrats are more comfortable and more likely to be politically engaged.

While students are more comfortable than uncomfortable sharing their political opinions at their college, we still find that one-third (33%) of students are concerned about censorship or negative repercussions if they do. During the transition between the Obama and Trump presidencies, we charted a significant increase in students feeling uncomfortable sharing their political views. In the last seven years, however, this trend has stabilized.

While college students who are Democrats say they are more comfortable than Republicans and independents sharing their views on campus, young Democrats also appear more politically engaged than Republicans. Among young Americans under 30, Democrats are more likely than Republicans in the last year to say they are politically engaged (34% Democrat, 25% Republican). Additionally, they are more likely to have:

• Shared or posted online advocating for a political position or opinion (32% Democrat, 14% Republican)
• Attended a political rally or demonstration (22% Democrat, 10% Republican)
• Donated money to a political campaign or cause (21% Democrat, 10% Republican)
• Participated in a government, political, or issue-related organization (10% Democrat, 6% Republican)
• Volunteered on a political campaign for a candidate or an issue (10% Democrat, 5% Republican).

As the election draws closer, young Americans can more clearly see the difference political engagement can make.

Among the strongest predictors of whether or not a young American is likely to vote in 2024 are attitudes related to the efficacy of the process, the system, and perceived differences between the parties. For example:

• 57% of likely voters strongly disagree with the statement that "it really doesn't matter to me who the President is." In comparison, only 25% of less likely voters strongly disagree with the statement.
• 45% of likely voters strongly disagree that they "don’t see a difference between the Democratic and Republican parties" compared to 21% of less likely voters.
• 32% of likely voters strongly disagree that "politics is not relevant to my life right now," while 9% of those less likely to vote strongly disagree.

As the number of young people likely to vote has increased in the last two waves of this poll, so too have positive attitudes about the efficacy of engagement.

Nearly half of young Americans are regularly bothered by feelings of depression or hopelessness. Mental health remains challenging for millions of young Americans, but there are early signs that things could be improving.

Forty-four (44%) of young Americans report feelings of depression or hopelessness at least several days in the last two weeks. Nearly as many say they had feelings of loneliness (40%), and feeling afraid as if something awful might happen (38%). Importantly, 17% tell us that they have had thoughts of self harm at least several days in the last two weeks—three percent of youth between 18 and 29 have these thoughts nearly every day.

Thoughts of self harm at least several days in the last two weeks are more prevalent among:

• Young women (19%);
• Hispanic-Americans (24%);
• Those not in college and without a degree (19%); and
• Young people living in small towns (27%).

Despite this, we see some evidence that the mental health of young Americans may be improving relative to 2021. While the number of young people suffering from depression, anxiety, loneliness, and thoughts of self-harm remains alarmingly high—across the board, the trend since 2021 appears to be heading in the right direction.

• Methodology

This poll of 2,010 18-to-29-year-olds was organized with undergraduate students from the Harvard Public Opinion Project (HPOP) and supervised by John Della Volpe, Director of Polling. Data were collected by Ipsos Public Affairs using the KnowledgePanel. KnowledgePanel provides probability-based samples with an "organic" representation of the study population for measurement of public opinions, attitudes, and behaviors. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish between March 14 and 21, 2024. The target population for this survey is U.S. residents between the ages of 18 and 29. Data are weighted to reflect population estimates based on age, race/Hispanic ethnicity, education, household income, census region by metropolitan area, and primary language within Hispanics. The margin of error for the total sample is +/- 3.02%.

Jump to Section

• Video Summary