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.
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.
“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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Some Jewish students at Columbia, though, have complained the protest rhetoric has gone beyond criticism of Israel’s policies, and led to a hostile environment in which Jewish students felt threatened.
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.
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.”
Seven professors at Columbia Law School issued their own legal analysis Saturday, finding that the Trump administration’s letter violates the Title VI standards along with First Amendment protections and due process rights, among other problems.
The government’s demands threaten “fundamental legal principles and the mission of colleges and universities across the country,” according to the analysis, posted online by David Pozen, a constitutional law professor.
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.
Kenneth Marcus, who led the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights during Trump’s first term, said the administration appears to be using its wide latitude over federal contracts to pressure Columbia, rather than limiting itself to the “cumbersome, bureaucratic, and relatively weak” Title VI process.
“The Trump administration is moving faster and punching harder than we’ve seen in the past, and that clearly is going to have a greater impact than prior administrations,” said Marcus, who now leads the Brandeis Center, a Jewish civil rights nonprofit.
Marcus called it a creative and novel strategy that hasn’t been tested in the courts, but he said Columbia is wise to take a cooperative stance.
“Columbia no doubt realizes that the initial $400 million problem can balloon into a multi-billion dollar disaster if they respond poorly,” he said.
The administration’s strategy is part of a hardline approach laid out in a March 7 memo placing antisemitism as a top priority for the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights. Instead of ending cases with “toothless reform proposals,” it demands meaningful changes to campus policies with a “strong emphasis on compliance.”
One of the office’s new goals is to deter “would-be civil rights violators from engaging in this conduct in the first instance,” according to the memo, obtained by The Associated Press.
Columbia’s response will set an example for the rest of higher education but there are no easy options, said Rachel Moran, a law professor at Texas A&M University. It appears the Trump administration improperly cut the university’s funding, she said, but there’s no guarantee a judge would restore the aid amid a legal challenge. And Columbia has to consider other factors, including the possibility of future retaliation from the administration.
“It’s a very, very tough situation,” Moran said. “And Columbia really is in some ways exhibit A in this controversy.”
Bagenstos sees it as another attempt by the Trump administration to test legal boundaries and see what kind of pushback it gets.
“Columbia is one of the largest, most prominent, most well-resourced higher education institutions in the world. And they have a very strong case,” he said. “If they’re not pushing back, that is going to send a signal to the Trump administration and to the rest of the academy. There’s no doubt about that.”
Tags
