‘A dangerous precedent’: Critics slam Columbia’s agreement with Trump administration

‘A dangerous precedent’: Critics slam Columbia’s agreement with Trump administration

This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

Federal officials hope their agreement with Columbia University will be a “template for other universities around the country,” U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said Thursday. 

Her remarks, made in a NewsNation interview, come as some critics publicly worry that the deal will spur the Trump administration to put financial pressure on other universities. Columbia law professor David Pozen, for instance, wrote in a blog post Wednesday that “the agreement gives legal form to an extortion scheme.”

Despite praise for the deal from some corners of the university, critics have also accused Columbia of capitulating to the Trump administration’s attacks on higher education.

The Trump administration has withheld federal funding from a long list of colleges, often claiming they are not doing enough to address antisemitism or otherwise violating civil rights laws. Columbia became the face of those battles in March, when the Trump administration canceled $400 million of the New York institution’s federal grants and contracts. 

Under the deal reached Wednesday, Columbia agreed to a litany of policy changes and concessions, including paying the federal government $221 million, to settle civil rights investigations and to have the “vast majority” of $400 million in federal grant funding reinstated, according to the university’s announcement.

Along with having most of the money reinstated, “Columbia’s access to billions of dollars in current and future grants will be restored,” the university said in Wednesday’s announcement. 

The deal ends the Trump administration’s probes into whether Columbia had failed to protect Jewish students from harassment and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s similar investigation into its treatment of employees. 

The 22-page agreement is wide-ranging. Columbia agreed to provide the federal government with admissions data on both its accepted and rejected applicants, craft training “to socialize all students to campus norms and values,” and have an independent monitor oversee its compliance with the deal. It also said it would establish processes to ensure students are committed to “civil discourse, free inquiry, open debate, and the fundamental values of equality and respect.”

Additionally, the university said it would decrease its financial dependence on international students — who make up roughly 40% of enrollment — and ask foreign applicants for their reasons “for wishing to study in the United States.” 

And Columbia will codify measures it announced in March, which include banning masks meant to conceal one’s identity and having a senior vice provost review programming focusing on the Middle East, including the university’s Center for Palestine Studies; Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies; and Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies. 

That leader, Miguel Urquiola, will review those and other programs — including their leadership and curriculum — to ensure they are “comprehensive and balanced,” according to the agreement. 

Columbia also agreed to appoint an administrator to serve as a student liaison to address concerns about antisemitism. That administrator will make recommendations to top officials about how the university can support Jewish students. 

‘A dangerous precedent’

Claire Shipman, Columbia’s acting president, suggested the deal doesn’t undermine the university’s autonomy. “It safeguards our independence, a critical condition for academic excellence and scholarly exploration, work that is vital to the public interest,” she said in a Wednesday statement

Indeed, the agreement says it does not give the federal government control over the university’s employee hiring, admission decisions or academic speech. 

However, critics have swiftly and vociferously denounced the deal, arguing that the university has yielded to an authoritarian administration and harmed the higher education sector at large.

Source link