Columbia University backs religious practices that silence and oppress women and claims to do so out of tolerance.
There can be no tolerance for cultures that promote misogyny and sexism on America's leading campuses, no matter how much university heads fear being called "Islamophobic."
A Columbia University student wearing a niqab reported that she was "targeted" off-campus "based on her identity," and in response, Acting University President Claire Shipman referred the "incident" to the NYPD as "an anti-Muslim hate crime."
It was the niqab that was the point of contention for the alleged harasser, an older white woman in a jean jacket and flats, who was said to have "made derogatory comments regarding their niqab."
A niqab muffles women's voices, silences women who wear them, and indicates to those around her that she is not participating in public life.
The university, attended by countless outspoken women over the centuries, should be liberating women and students from the backward belief that women should not be seen or heard in public.
Shipman believes that vocally opposing a niqab, which covers a woman's face other than her eyes, is an act of "anti-Muslim" and "anti-Arab hate."
It is instead an act of hate to allow these facial coverings on campus; the niqab has no place in Western nations at all, and even less place on an American university campus.
Universities are places where students come as equals, to learn, to excel in scholarship, to entertain ideas, to dig deep with their peers.
How can a campus be a place of equals if some students present themselves, at the outset, as distinctly not equal?
Many women cover their hair with scarves, but covering the face is a step too far.
Use of the niqab or burqa signals a pivot to Islamic fundamentalism.
More secular governments, like that of Egypt, have voiced concern over increasing niqab-wearing on Cairo streets.
France has banned the public wearing of Muslim face-coverings nationwide, Switzerland has considered a similar ban.
Women across the Arab and Muslim worlds have been fighting against these barbaric practices for decades.
The Iranian Revolution's sweep across Islamic nations robbed Muslim women of their agency to speak, be seen, work, be educated, drive, or leave the house.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali spoke about burqa bans, condemning the veil and saying that "in a western society the best thing to do is to have a debate about the substance."
"What does the veil stand for?" She asked. "What is the likelihood of Sharia law or parts of Sharia law being introduced into [western] society?"
Has Shipman considered this at all?
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) took the opportunity to slam Columbia for not backing the pro-Gaza protesters enough, claiming that "Columbia University as an institution has targeted Muslims and Arabs for peaceful protest activity relating to Palestine."
These were protesters who engaged in antisemitic protests, blocking Jewish students from crossing the quad or attending class.
Former school head Minouche Shafik upheld a commitment to "academic freedom" in supporting the pro-Palestinian campus occupation at the time.
CAIR said that "No student should be harassed or intimidated simply because of their faith or the way they choose to observe it."
But wearing a niqab is a backward relic of a sect of hardline Islamism that refuses to allow women to have equality.
And Shipman is playing into that by refusing to speak out against religious tyranny that mistreats, devalues, and belittles women by forcing them to cover their faces.
New York City has an incoming Muslim mayor who claimed his "aunt" was victimized by 9/11 because she was "afraid" to wear her hijab on the subway.
He's more concerned with foreign residents and fighting so-called Islamophobia—such as that which Shipman would argue this student faced just off campus in Manhattan—than keeping our greatest city American.
Our universities must absolutely not capitulate to Islamic fundamentalism.
If a woman wishes to attend Columbia University she should cast off the confines of a religion that tells her she cannot appear in public, that she cannot be seen or heard by her peers, and engage in true academic freedom.
Shipman said that the off-campus harassment shows that "tolerance and acceptance are precariously low," and claims that students and faculty must work hard to "offer understanding, compassion, and support."
Tolerance that tolerates the oppression of women on a campus allegedly dedicated to academic freedom is intolerance of the worst kind.
