Everyone remembers the events of last spring at Columbia University in New York. Jewish students were harassed, mistreated, jeered at, terrorized, and often forced to go home because of threats. Le Figaro, among others, reported last April on a statement from a Jewish student association : " We are horrified and worried about the physical safety of Jewish students on campus ," adding that the association had hired armed bodyguards to escort students home after meetings. Pro-Palestinian students terrorized the campus, occupied the premises, set up camps, and prevented Jewish students from moving freely around the university.

We also recall that the presidents of Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, and MIT, questioned by a congressional inquiry, asserted that calls for the genocide of Jews did not truly violate their universities' "code of conduct" as long as no action was taken, in the name of sacrosanct freedom of expression . Faced with the outcry provoked by such responses, two of them ultimately resigned.

At Columbia, the president, Nemat Shafik, known as Minouche, had to call the police on campus to dislodge pro-Palestinian students from their camps and from university buildings where they had no business, Hamilton Hall in particular. About a hundred of them had been arrested: this somewhat disconcerted them, having been raised in the absence of contradiction and unable to accept being accused of harassing those they believe to be responsible for or approving of the war in the Middle East and who have only the "fault" of being Jewish.

It was now necessary to calm tempers and try to reconcile the student activists with their university, so they would understand that discussion and reasoned debate are essential tools for sharing their convictions. Trying to persuade through violence, exclusion, and terror is unacceptable, especially on university grounds; it is normal to maintain order on a campus occupied by activists. Shafik did not succeed and ended up resigning herself in August, as the campus was gripped by renewed violence. She is no ordinary person! An internationally renowned economist, director of the London School of Economics from 2017 to 2023, and a member of the House of Lords since 2020, she was not one to be easily swayed. She had not attained these responsibilities through affirmative action like Claudine Gay… An interim president, Katrina Armstrong, was appointed and it was hoped that she would have the necessary charisma to succeed in imposing peace.

She recently spoke out in an interview with the student editors of the university newspaper, the Columbia Spectator , and it was Inside Higher Education , a major magazine dedicated to higher education and American university life, that reported on it. Before these students, Armstrong offered her apologies . Guess to whom? To the Jewish students who were harassed, mistreated, jeered at, and terrorized for weeks without the university defending or protecting them? Certainly not! It was to those who were "hurt" by the New York police's operations to remove pro-Palestinian protesters from campus that she offered her "apologies." It doesn't appear, however, that the police committed any violence or physically injured the occupants of the makeshift camps. Rather, it seems that these well-meaning occupants were wounded in their pride and beliefs—which certainly warranted an apology from the university authorities!

That said, it’s hard to know exactly what Armstrong thinks about these events. The student newspaper asked her if she agreed with former president Nemat Shafik in her decision to call the police to dismantle a recently formed protest encampment—leading to the arrest of more than 100 students—and later to call the police again to evict the occupants of Hamilton Hall. Her response is a template for any university official looking to cover up the issue: 

“I know this is hard for me to say, but I understand that I’m in this position, don’t I? And if you could just tell everyone who was hurt, I’m so sorry,” Armstrong replied. “I know it wasn’t me, but I’m so sorry… I saw it, and I’m truly sorry… I see the harm that happened and I’m deeply committed to working with all of you, I’m working with the whole community to both address this harm and understand it.” ^[1] .

Incredibly sorry , really sorry : three times sorry in two lines!

When questioned by Inside Higher Education , a Columbia spokesperson stated:

"Dr. Armstrong gave a wide-ranging interview to the student newspaper, which dealt in part with the impact of the past year, and just as she has done in her speeches to many groups on our campus, she acknowledged their pain and reiterated how sorry she was for all the students who are suffering . "

Everything is encompassed in these saccharine apologies, which are addressed "to all students who are suffering".

Sorry, sorry, yes, but ultimately sorry for whom, for what? By remaining vague, Armstrong does not escape the ambiguity! No doubt she has read Cardinal de Retz? A Columbia professor, Shai Davidai, did not let himself be taken in and counterattacked very well:

“Did she apologize to the Jewish and Israeli students who were terrorized for months on campus? No. She apologized to the students who broke the rules and suffered the consequences .” And Columbia’s Council of Trustees and Alumni representative , Steven McGuire, said, “This weakness is truly unbelievable. The protesters broke the law. They occupied a building. Antisemitism ran rampant. The graduation ceremony had to be canceled. The campus is still partially closed. There have already been other acts of vandalism this semester. And she apologizes? She should promise to do it again if necessary . ”

But since we're told she apologized profusely, what are you looking for? Clearly, these apologies weren't enough, since, while they were the only ones in April, they're complaining in October that their freedom of expression has been curtailed … A fine example of victimhood reversal! Weren't they, rather, deprived of their ability to think critically?