Art Scholars Announce Boycott of Columbia University Over Controversial Issues
Title: Academic Boycott of Columbia University Highlights Tensions Between Free Expression and Institutional Compliance
In an unprecedented move, more than 1,800 academics, including prominent art historians and professors, have signed an open letter committing to an academic and cultural boycott of Columbia University. The letter, released on March 26, 2025, denounces the university for complying with a series of mandates imposed by the Trump administration concerning pro-Palestinian activism on campus. The signatories view these actions as part of a broader, authoritarian effort to curtail expressive freedoms within educational and cultural institutions.
Background: Federal Funding and Free Speech Controversy
At the heart of the issue is Columbia’s decision to accede to federal conditions to reinstate $400 million in funding. This included placing the Middle Eastern Studies department under receivership—stripping it of internal governance—and clamping down on pro-Palestinian demonstrations. Critics argue these actions amount to severe violations of academic and expressive freedoms.
“This is about much more than a single university,” said Sarah Gilbert, associate professor of art at Pitzer College and one of the boycott’s signatories. “It signals a dangerous precedent where academic institutions choose compliance over the protection of students’ voices—particularly those tied to marginalized groups.”
Intersection of Politics, Art, and Academia
The boycott’s participants are drawing attention to the interwoven impact of political intervention in academic spaces—particularly when it concerns the expressive and critical capabilities of the arts, humanities, and social sciences.
Gilbert accentuated that these measures resemble a broader trend under the Trump administration, which has attacked not just higher education but also the arts—specifically the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH).
“They go after writers, and they go after artists, and they go after academics,” she said.
Global Artistic Repercussions
The impacts of Columbia’s compliance and suppression are already reverberating throughout the art and academic worlds. Art professors like Laura Kina Vincent of DePaul University argue that the arts cannot be siloed from political or scientific disciplines—expressing solidarity across these interconnected sectors.
Vincent, who authored an open letter urging DePaul University to support pro-Palestinian students, emphasized her civic and professional responsibility: “I’m a full professor and a US-born citizen. With those two protections, I need to stand up.”
Art institutions, conferences, lectures, and exhibitions—particularly those focused on artists from the Middle East, Southwest Asia, and North Africa (SWANA)—may face increased scrutiny, according to some scholars. Sarah Ganzel, a PhD student in art history, warns that the chilling effects on cultural expression may be long-lasting and far-reaching.
The Detention of Mahmoud Khalil and the Case of Grant Miner
The boycott also brings attention to individual cases, such as the detention of Mahmoud Khalil and the expulsion of Columbia graduate student and union leader Grant Miner. These actions, taken in response to the protests surrounding “Hind’s Hall,” are viewed by many as emblematic of a hardline crackdown on campus dissent.
“Within the university, artists are vulnerable and being attacked because that’s where some of the most critical discussions happen,” explained T.J. Demos, professor of art history and visual culture at UC Santa Cruz.
He likened the current academic and cultural environment to a “new Red Scare,” with heightened surveillance and consequences for those who critique the status quo—particularly on issues like settler colonialism, racial capitalism, and militarism. Demos also pointed to parallels in the broader cultural landscape, referencing numerous canceled art exhibitions centered on Palestinian perspectives since October 2023.
The Role of Powerful Trustees
A recurring theme among the boycott supporters is the wielding of institutional power by elites. Many university and museum boards include corporate executives with financial ties to weapons manufacturing and the Israeli military. According to critics, this network of influence further undermines efforts to foster open and equitable discussions on sensitive political matters.
Artist-organizer Cindy Hwang of Art Against Displacement, one of the few non-academic signatories, underscored the importance of solidarity across communities: “We all have a stake in this, especially if we’re people who value creative expression.”
What the Boycott Entails
Those who have signed the boycott pledge commit to abstaining from participation in any Columbia-held or -sponsored event, including academic conferences, lectures, collaborative art installations, and other programming. Crucially, it also includes avoiding collaborations with faculty who hold administrative roles within Columbia or its affiliated Barnard College.
While it remains unclear who initiated the petition, its swift and robust adoption indicates deep concern and unity across academic and artistic sectors.
A Larger Struggle for Free Thought
“This isn’t just about protesting Columbia’s capitulation,” said Demos. “This is a much larger battle for the very soul of the university.”
As higher education faces growing pressures from