Under Pressure from Trump, Columbia Plans its Next Move with Other Colleges Watching Closely

Introduction to the Crisis

By COLLIN BINKLEY
WASHINGTON (AP) — Confronted with huge cuts to its funding, Columbia University’s leaders face a grim decision: They can yield to the Trump administration’s demands over allegations of antisemitism — ceding extraordinary control to the federal government — or they can fight back, potentially risking even more debilitating cuts in an escalating clash.

The Weight of Columbia’s Decision

However it responds, Columbia carries tremendous weight. It’s the first school to face such aggressive intervention from the Trump administration, but dozens of others have been put on notice they’re next if they defy the president’s orders on issues around pro-Palestinian activism, diversity programs or transgender women in girl’s sports.

National Attention and Implications

“People in the academy around the country are looking to see what Columbia does here,” said Samuel Bagenstos, a law professor at the University of Michigan who served until December as general counsel for the Health and Human Services Department.

The Trump Administration’s Actions

The Trump administration is acting quickly to make an example of Columbia as it demands stronger action against allegations of anti-Jewish bias on college campuses. On March 7, just 32 days after opening an investigation at Columbia, the Trump administration pulled $400 million in research grants and other federal money. It threatened to cut billions more over the university’s handling of protests against the war in Gaza and allegations of antisemitism.

Demands and Deadlines

The threats escalated last week with a list of demands that Trump officials called a “precondition” for receiving federal money. It told the college to place its Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies Department into “academic receivership” and reorganize discipline processes, among other changes.
It gave Columbia until this week to comply.

Columbia’s Response

Columbia hasn’t signaled its plans. Responding to the latest demands, interim President Katrina Armstrong promised the school “will stand by its values” but did not elaborate. School leaders previously pledged to work with the Trump administration to fight antisemitism.

Internal Pressures

Internally, Columbia faces pressure to fight back. Some faculty want it to resist demands they see as an assault on academic freedom, and some students are condemning its recent decision to expel some students who participated in pro-Palestinian protests last year.

The Debate Over Antisemitism and Free Speech

Supporters of Israel and Trump administration officials have framed the protests at Columbia and other schools as antisemitic and “pro-Hamas,” but people involved in the demonstrations reject that characterization. They say advocating for Palestinian human rights and territorial claims, or criticizing Israeli military action, isn’t antisemitic. Some Jewish students and groups have participated in the protests.

Legal Analysis

Several law scholars said the school could make a strong case that Trump officials illegally pulled Columbia’s federal money.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 allows the Education Department to terminate funding to colleges that violate civil rights laws, but only after taking certain steps. Title VI of the law says the department must first make a formal finding of noncompliance, offer a hearing, notify Congress and then wait 30 days before pulling aid.

Potential Violations of Law

It appears at least some steps weren’t followed, Bagenstos said.
“There has been no express finding, there has been no record, there has been no opportunity for a hearing,” he said. “This is just dramatically in violation of the procedural requirements under Title VI.”

Precedent and Strategy

Columbia has little precedent to draw upon as it weighs its next steps. Presidential administrations traditionally have taken a cooperative approach to get colleges to comply with federal law, favoring voluntary agreements over sanctions. But the Trump administration is taking an adversarial role, moving quickly from demands to penalties with little room for negotiating.

Conclusion

The situation at Columbia University represents a critical moment in the relationship between the federal government and institutions of higher education. The university’s decision will have far-reaching implications for academic freedom, the handling of allegations of antisemitism, and the role of the federal government in dictating university policies. As the nation watches, Columbia must balance its commitment to its values with the potential consequences of resisting or complying with the Trump administration’s demands.

FAQs

• Q: What is the central issue in the conflict between Columbia University and the Trump administration?
  A: The central issue is the Trump administration’s allegations of antisemitism on Columbia’s campus and its demands for the university to take specific actions to address these allegations, including placing a department into "academic receivership" and reorganizing discipline processes.
• Q: How much funding has Columbia University lost due to the Trump administration’s actions?
  A: Columbia University has lost $400 million in research grants and other federal money, with the threat of additional cuts.
• Q: What are the potential legal grounds for Columbia University to challenge the Trump administration’s actions?
  A: Columbia could argue that the Trump administration violated the procedural requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by not following the necessary steps before pulling federal funding.
• Q: What implications does this situation have for other colleges and universities?
  A: The outcome of this situation will set a precedent for how the federal government interacts with institutions of higher education, particularly regarding issues of academic freedom, antisemitism, and compliance with federal demands.