Columbia University President Minouche Shafik has garnered attention for her 2021 book, "What We Owe Each Other." This book has drawn appreciation from influential figures in economics and social policy for its significance in the discourse concerning strengthening society.

Shafik is an exemplary professional who has worked in the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the Bank of England. She also vastly contributes to academia as a director of the London School of Economics.

Israel Conflict and Governance Concerns

Shafik's tenure at Columbia has taken an unexpected turn, revealing undemocratic tendencies within elite circles. Despite her book advocating for progressive policies like higher taxes on capital and better labor benefits, its governance approach raises concerns. 

In light of weeks of student protests at Columbia University regarding Israel's conflict with Hamas, tensions have escalated on the New York City campus. In some of these situations, antisemitic acts or hate against the University's Jewish students have been noted. Students also called the aggressive tactics and involvement of city police authorities in disrupting their protest against financial institutions trading with Israel due to alleged apartheid practices.

The recent conflict underscores the necessity for Columbia University to reassess its social contract. Shafik's handling of student protests accentuates the gap between institutional leadership and democratic ideals, resulting in the cancellation of this year's graduation ceremony.

Shafik's book falls short of addressing the complexities of the current societal challenges. While it touches upon vital material issues, it fails to capture the profound political frustration and physical insecurity driving the turmoil on America's campuses.

READ ALSO: PEN America Cancels 'World Voices Festival' as Authors Withdraw in Support of Gaza

Shafik's Approach to Governance and Institutional Reform

Shafik's interpretation of the social contract diverges from traditional democratic principles, as she emphasizes partnerships between institutions without addressing democratic legitimacy adequately.

While Shafik calls for institutional reforms and a departure from the state-versus-market dichotomy, her framework lacks clarity on balancing competing interests within institutions like Columbia University. This ambiguity extends to societal responsibilities for businesses, leaving unanswered questions about conflicting priorities and the rights of stakeholders.

Shafik's focus on economic productivity as a driver for societal progress overlooks critical democratic considerations. By equating social contracts with economic outcomes and downplaying the role of democratic participation, Shafik's approach raises concerns about the erosion of democratic values within institutions.

Shafik's analysis dances around the core issues without fully grasping them. She acknowledges the widespread disappointment among citizens despite unprecedented societal progress. She attributes this discontent to a breakdown in the social contract due to technological and demographic shifts.

Shafik's analysis suggests a broad understanding of how the social contract ideally functions: citizens expect access to decent schools, healthcare, and safety in exchange for obeying the law. However, she acknowledges the uncertainty surrounding what is reasonable to predict when this societal agreement is perceived to be broken, as she asserts it is.

While Shafik's book presents valuable policy proposals, its underlying philosophy neglects democratic accountability. It fails to address the complexities of governance within institutions like Columbia University. A reexamination of the social contract is essential to ensure the preservation of democratic values and the equitable resolution of institutional conflicts.

RELATED ARTICLE: New Book 'If We Burn' Analyzes Why a Decade of Mass Protests Yielded Little Change