According to CampusJ's Columbia blog, the University brokered a deal to give the story to the NYT as an exclusive, before the report was shown to any students, on condition that they do not interview any of the students who made the complaints. If this is true, beyond issues of ethics here, I find it strange and surprising that the NYT would accept such a deal, which severely compromises its reporting for what is honestly not such a big scoop. Follow the details/allegations here.
In any case, the blog makes the convincing case that the report was primarily oriented towards addressing media concerns:
Clearly I haven't read the report. However, from the newspaper/blog reports, it's hard not to notice that while the professors are basically exonorated, the harsh language seems to be reserved for the students who lodged the complaints, for (allegedly) disrupting lectures and seminars (which probably means contradicting some blatantly anti-Israel remark by the professor) and creating an atmosphere on campus whereby professors felt 'spied upon'. I find it hard to believe, and it's statistically unlikely, that with 60 complaints against the professors, it's the students who deserve to get slammed whilst just one complaint is (partially) upheld. Talk about turning the tables.
The report also made clear that “no evidence of any statements made by the faculty that could reasonably be construed as anti-Semitic.” Yet, no charges of anti-Semitism were ever filed by students and CAF has never alleged anti-Semitism. The Sun, among other media outlets, has made such claims and is the claims and voice of the media to whom the report was clearly addressed.
The university's behavior in releasing the report is indicative of the committee's guiding philosophy that apparently places a higher value on Columbia's image than its students. Denying students the right to see the report before the New York Times had published an article summarizing and defining the report to the public (the Times article was in fact published online late last night before any students even read the report) underscores the fact that the university’s investigation was foremost a response to mounting outside pressure and not motivated by concern for students' grievances.