Columbia University’s leadership appears determined to avoid a public confrontation. Rather than decisively addressing the pro-Hamas demonstrations and alleged criminal conduct on campus, administrators have restricted access to the urban campus—disrupting an entire neighborhood and raising questions about whether the university is violating its legal obligations.
The restrictions followed months of turmoil surrounding Columbia’s protests and encampment, when students joined outside activists in occupying portions of the university’s Morningside Heights campus.
After prolonged hesitation, Columbia eventually asked the NYPD to intervene and restore order. The decision came after protesters took over Hamilton Hall, prompting demands that the university continue delivering meal-plan food to the building to prevent occupiers from going without food or water.
The university also closed College Walk, the section of 116th Street between Broadway and Amsterdam Avenue that has been open to pedestrians since at least 1953. That year, the city transferred the roadway to Columbia under an easement that guaranteed public access.
More than two years later, the closure continues to force pedestrians to take a route six blocks longer. The detour has inconvenienced the broader community and created particular hardships for older residents and people with disabilities.
Columbia maintains that it has the authority to restrict access in order to preserve a quieter and more secure campus environment.
Critics argue that the policy has simply shifted the disorder beyond the university’s gates. Crowds and demonstrations now spill onto surrounding sidewalks, burdening the same neighborhood that is already dealing with the closure of a heavily used public passage.
The university says it has broad discretion to close the campus and points residents to a QR-code system, combined with state identification, that can be used to request access to College Walk.
CONTINUE READING: Hong Kong Socialite Abby Choi’s Ex-Husband, In-Laws on Trial
Even if the closure is ultimately deemed lawful, the policy raises questions about Columbia’s responsibilities to a community whose streets and public spaces the university has steadily absorbed over time.
Columbia should accept responsibility for maintaining order on its own campus rather than transferring the consequences to nearby residents.
If outside activists violate campus rules, the university should remove them and formally bar them from returning.
If students erect tents or barricades in unauthorized areas, administrators should dismantle them promptly instead of allowing unauthorized encampments to become entrenched.
And if students or activists—including Mahmoud Khalil, identified in the original controversy as an Algerian graduate student—publicly call for negotiations over the university’s response, Columbia should evaluate whether their conduct violates campus rules and apply disciplinary measures consistently.
University officials should not allow intimidation tactics, masks or theatrical demonstrations to determine campus policy. The standard should be clear rules, lawful enforcement and equal accountability.
If Columbia wants to demonstrate control of its campus, it should restore order through consistent enforcement—not by blocking seniors, disabled residents and other neighbors from reaching local shops or the downtown IRT.
The university should reopen College Walk and restore public access.