On Columbia’s Identity: Lessons from George Erik Rupp
The former University president’s vision of pluralism offered a mirror that pointed inward at Columbia’s history and the Core Curriculum.
Not only is Columbia on the brink of its third regime change in less than two years, but its reputation in the world of American higher education and in the public’s eye has been greatly damaged. And it’s not just because of campus protests—a nationwide “counter-elite” sentiment, driven by the populist movement that rejected Harris at the ballot box, has tanked Americans’ confidence in higher education to an all-time low.
In the midst of such institutional uncertainty, a question of concern for all students, faculty, and administrators should be: what exactly are we even standing up for?
In a very serious sense: what is Columbia’s identity? What are her illusory values?
To make sense of our institution’s current identity crisis (and yes, we are most certainly in one), it’s helpful to look at history—toward a time where the University had a concrete, unique identity grounded in the Western tradition and guided by the leadership of a University president who dedicated much of his academic life to religious pluralism. I spoke with George Erik Rupp, who served as University president from 1993 to 2002, to try and understand what Columbia’s values were, are, and should be.
Just Another Elite College?
When I think back to when I first applied to college, I would be hard-pressed to find any singular, distinctive trait about what it meant to be a student at Columbia specifically. Undoubtedly, there were references to a world-class education, the opportunity to hide away from the rest of America in my very own liberal bubble in Manhattan, and even the promise of launching my self-actualizing “lifelong journey of impact.”
But really, none of these marketing points are uniquely representative of Columbia. Just as one example, Vanderbilt University also markets itself as offering “world-renowned faculty,” a liberal haven from the rest of the South, and the opportunity to “recharge and stay inspired.”
What Columbia and Vanderbilt share in common is the identity of an elite college: strong academics, favorable job prospects, a pragmatic commitment to global impact, centering inclusivity and justice, and so on. Potential students could plausibly be just as happy at any elite college that offered their desired academic and career prospects.
It also means that the “values” our former University President Minouche Shafik often invoked were, shall we say, unremarkable. In a December 2023 email titled “Our Community, Our Values,” for example, Shafik wrote, “This institution is an extraordinary place, where the best minds, for 269 years, have devoted themselves to research, teaching, learning, and global engagement with extraordinary expertise, determination, and compassion.” What elite college wouldn’t say the same?
But, more distinctive school characteristics can be fostered under proper leadership.
For example, Lee Bollinger, who was University president from 2002 to 2023, recognized Columbia’s unique opportunity in a rapidly globalizing world and combined that with his decades-long commitment to First Amendment values. As a result, Columbia developed an identity as a New York City-based “global university” and center for free speech and political debate. This identity is visible in landmark initiatives like the World Leaders Forum, where Columbia hosts speeches and panels with world leaders, usually during the UN General Assembly sessions, the Knight First Amendment Institute, which researches and litigates free speech cases, and the development of Columbia Global Centers.
Before Bollinger was George Erik Rupp, a theologian turned University visionary who studied religious pluralism. Accordingly, he quite accurately associated Columbia’s institutional identity with the Core Curriculum’s model of pluralism. He did this first with inspiration from his own intellectual pursuits and also adapted some of Columbia’s existing qualities through the lens of religious pluralism.
Rupp and Religious Pluralism
Rupp, a Presbyterian and native New Jerseyan, told Sundial how he started to seriously think about religious pluralism due in part to his “high regard for Theravada Buddhism” and deep internal debates within the faith. His interests led him to spend 1969-1970 abroad in Sri Lanka, in pursuit of traditions “very different from the Christian one” he was accustomed to.
“‘I thought it would be extraordinarily interesting not only to read books about Buddhism and interact with Buddhists who were in [the United States], but to go to a society pervaded by Buddhist influence,’” Rupp said in an October 1998 interview with Spectator.
It is in his third book, Beyond Existentialism and Zen, published in 1979, where Rupp clarifies his definition of religious pluralism. He explained how there was a time in world history when it was acceptable to ascribe a “sphere of influence” approach to religious pluralism, i.e., Hinduism is for India, and Christianity is for the West. However, our ever-expanding “unified world culture” means that deep Christian and Hindu communities are appearing in every corner of the planet.
“Pluralism exists not only among but also within the various religions,” Harvey Cox, a former professor of divinity at Harvard, wrote in the book’s foreword. There lies, then, possibilities for Christians in the West to learn from and converse with non-Christian schools of thought, which in some ways may be “closer to our own interpretation of Christianity than are certain opinions within Christianity itself.”
Under this model, Western thought isn’t in existential opposition to other traditions in a “clash of civilizations” dynamic. But this also isn’t an acceptance of critical theories on the left that say the West and its ideas are inherently evil and must be extinguished by the morally superior anti-West traditions.
Instead, Rupp presented an opportunity for scholars to faithfully embrace both the traditions that built America and the traditions that built other religions, to find commonalities without giving up one side’s particularities.
Balancing Tradition and Modernity
For Rupp, applying this model of religious pluralism to Columbia meant embracing diversity of thought and experience while maintaining the institution’s history—the perfect balance between tradition and modernity.
Rupp’s nuanced beliefs on religious pluralism informed his appreciation of the undergraduate program and the Core as the “center of the University.”
“[It] is very difficult to read the Western Core without also being attentive to the religious underpinnings of a great many of the writings,” he said. “So, I think in other traditions, it’s important that the readings in those traditions include also the religious dimensions.”
Rupp said the inclusion of this religious context can help us engage in good-faith conversation and bridge cultural and professional differences. “It’s important that there be a common core that allows us to speak to each other,” he said, “so that all of the specialization that goes on doesn't deprive the population of common ground.”
The pursuit of common ground that occurs through the Core should not be expected from the vast majority of Americans but rather from those who seek to be considered “truly educated people,” Rupp said.
Rupp began his presidency by proclaiming that the entire University should be modeled by “The College Core,” and accordingly, he consistently uplifted and recentered the undergraduate program. This desire to center the College was motivated in part by Rupp’s “Enlargement and Enhancement” policy, which drastically increased the number of undergraduates and the amount of resources allocated to them. While this growth was made possible by the University’s improved fundraising efforts, it was evident from my conversation with President Emeritus Rupp that his special attention to the College originated from his appreciation for the Core and its inherent pluralism.
Rupp’s leadership priorities were evident even before Columbia. Before his presidency, Rupp served as the dean of Harvard Divinity School from 1979 to 1985. There, he is credited for modernizing the school’s curricula from exclusively Protestant to mandating the study of other religious traditions. The school’s curricula expanded to include women’s studies and religion, Jewish-Christian relations, and religion and medicine—all pressing topics that sought to address contemporary religious life.
Naturally, Rupp disapproved of student protestors during the 1996 Ethnic Studies protests, which sought the creation of a minority studies department and the inclusion of more minority authors in the Core. They miscategorized the Core as an institution that “supports white supremacy by way of a Eurocentric academic program.” The movement directly contradicted Rupp’s model of the Core, where students would seek similarities across the aisle in their pursuit of knowledge while staying grounded in the Western tradition—rather than dissenting for the sake of being rebellious.
While Rupp admits Columbia has not always “done a good job of nourishing diversity,” it has always been “a place where decades can have interactions with people who have quite different views from one's own.” Rupp pointed out that he spent his presidency “nurturing and encouraging interaction among different kinds of people,” including fostering a strong relationship with Morningside Heights and Harlem residents.
The Legacy of Rupp’s Pluralism
By the end of his tenure, Rupp had ushered in a “CU Renaissance.” Columbia’s endowment increased 126 percent from $1.9 billion in 1993 to $4.3 billion in 2001, and a budget deficit of $15 million in 1992 became a $6.8 million operating profit by 2000. I can’t imagine that his success in defining Columbia’s identity using the Core’s model of religious pluralism didn’t play a role.
Rupp’s nine-year tenure brought practical improvements to a Columbia education: revamped libraries and dorms, a more prestigious reputation, and increased financial aid. Rupp can even be credited for encouraging the opening of Book Culture (formerly Labyrinth Books). His legacy touches every part of modern Columbia, but perhaps his most touching influence was sincere leadership, grounded in an authoritative clarity on what an education should be.
In contrast to some of the half-baked labels used by our former president, Rupp’s model of pluralism worked because it was not just a reflection of Rupp’s own intellectual pursuits. It served as a complete methodology for Columbia students—and our institution—for engaging with ourselves, our neighbors, and the political schisms of the time.
Most importantly, such an identity was authentic. It wasn’t forced upon Columbia by the latest political inclinations of the elite, nor was it a byproduct of the corporatization of college education. Rather, Rupp's vision of pluralism offered a mirror that pointed inward at Columbia’s history, its Core, and its place in higher education. This approach to leadership worked in congruence with Columbia’s underlying traits.
It is this model of pluralism, a principle not only uniquely American but also uniquely Columbian, that once distinguished the University as an intellectual institution and summed up its complex identity.
Ms. Chaudhry is a junior at Columbia College studying history and a staff editor for Sundial.