Columbia’s ‘antisemitism’ squad is coming down hard — on Catholics like me

New York Post - Apr 17th, 2025

Columbia University is under scrutiny after its Office of Institutional Equity (OIE) targeted Daniel DiMartino, a PhD candidate, for his social media posts expressing Catholic beliefs. The university, while claiming to tackle antisemitic violence, is accused of bias by DiMartino, who received communication from the OIE about potential 'discriminatory harassment' without specific details. His posts, which include opinions on gender identity and immigration, led to a meeting with OIE officials. Despite claims of not intending to discipline DiMartino, the university's actions have been perceived as policing speech, prompting intervention from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which defends free speech rights on campuses.

This incident highlights ongoing tensions in academic environments surrounding free speech and religious expression. DiMartino argues that the university's actions reflect a broader trend of penalizing conservative and Christian views, questioning the fairness of applying vague standards like 'creating a hostile environment.' The case raises significant implications for freedom of speech and the expression of religious beliefs in educational institutions, sparking debates about bias and the balance between maintaining inclusive environments and respecting individual rights.

Social Media Free Speech Gender Identity Columbia University Daniel Di Martino Office Of Institutional Equity Catholic Beliefs Religious Expression Foundation For Individual Rights And Expression

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

4.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The story presents a compelling personal narrative about the author's experience with Columbia University's policies on free speech and religious expression. However, it lacks balance and relies heavily on the author's perspective without providing sufficient corroborating evidence or alternative viewpoints. The lack of transparency and source diversity affects the story's credibility, though it remains timely and relevant to ongoing public debates about free expression and discrimination in academic settings. The article's emotive language and controversial subject matter are likely to engage readers and provoke discussion, but its impact may be limited by the absence of a more balanced and well-supported presentation of the facts.

Accuracy

The story makes several factual claims, such as Columbia University creating an Office of Institutional Equity (OIE) to address antisemitism and the author's experience of being targeted for expressing Catholic beliefs. While the existence of the OIE can be confirmed, the narrative lacks independent verification regarding the specifics of the investigation and the actions taken by the OIE. The author claims that his social media posts were scrutinized by Columbia officials, but there is no corroborating evidence from Columbia or third-party sources to substantiate these claims. The story's accuracy is thus partially verifiable, with significant elements needing further confirmation.

Balance

The article predominantly presents the author's perspective, focusing on his experience and interpretation of events. There is a clear bias towards portraying Columbia University in a negative light, with little effort to present the university's viewpoint or any official statements that might provide context or counterarguments. The narrative lacks a balanced presentation of perspectives, as it does not explore the reasons behind Columbia's actions or the potential validity of the university's policies. This one-sided approach limits the reader's ability to fully understand the situation.

Clarity

The article is written in a clear and straightforward manner, making it easy for readers to follow the author's narrative. The language is accessible, and the structure logically presents the sequence of events from the author's perspective. However, the tone is somewhat inflammatory, which may affect the perception of neutrality and objectivity. While the story is easy to read, the emotive language may influence readers' interpretation of the facts.

Source quality

The story relies heavily on the author's personal account without citing external sources or providing evidence to support the claims made. There is no attribution to official statements from Columbia University or any third-party verification of the events described. The lack of diverse and authoritative sources undermines the credibility of the narrative, as readers are left to rely solely on the author's perspective without corroborating information from other parties involved.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in terms of methodology and context. The author does not provide detailed information about how the events unfolded, nor does he disclose any potential conflicts of interest that might influence his perspective. The basis for the claims made is not clearly explained, leaving readers with insufficient context to assess the impartiality of the narrative. This lack of transparency affects the overall reliability of the story.