BY HANK REICHMAN
As an alum of Columbia University (CC ’69) I received an email yesterday from the university’s interim president Katrina Armstrong responding to the Trump Administration’s decision to arbitrarily cancel some $400 million in federal grants “due to the school’s continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students.” The email assured me and others in the Columbia community that “we are committed to working with the federal government to address their legitimate concerns.” The rest of the email was devoted to yet another elaboration of the university’s extensive efforts to address antisemitism, spelled out further here. In a media statement, a university spokesperson added, “We take Columbia’s legal obligations seriously and understand how serious this announcement is and are committed to combatting antisemitism and ensuring the safety and wellbeing of our students, faculty, and staff.”
Now, I can get why a major university would not wish to further antagonize an administration that has already sought repeatedly to use the university as a political punching bag. Of course, Columbia’s leaders should make whatever efforts they can to get this decision reversed. But, alas, that is not what Armstrong wrote. Instead of at least hinting that the university might, well, punch back just a bit, Armstrong offered instead to double-down on actions that many at Columbia and elsewhere have already condemned as overbroad. McGill University political scientist Jacob Levy put it well in a post to BlueSky:
At a meeting of the University Senate, Jeffrey Gordon, the Richard Paul Richman professor of law, asked if the University has “filed suit for a restraining order to restore the flow of funds.” Classics professor Joseph Howley, a frequent Jewish critic of the Columbia administration’s approach to issues of antisemitism and free speech, told the New York Times, “My only question right now is whether the university will be taking Trump to court over this or just rolling over and accepting it.”
To be sure, the federal government has far greater leeway to cancel contracts than would a private actor. But that does not mean that institutions and individuals do not have avenues for recourse and appeal. It seems likely that this sweeping cancellation over multiple agencies falls under the standard of a “termination for convenience.” This is how one law firm describes how a grantee might respond to such a termination:
Terminations for convenience generally give the government a broad right to end contracts, but that right is not completely unfettered. Part 49 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and established precedent regulate the government’s ability to terminate for convenience and the contractor’s right to recovery. Although challenging a termination for convenience is extremely difficult, the government cannot invoke its termination rights in bad faith. Documented evidence of political pressure or a desire to curry personal favor with senior officials might satisfy the demanding “well-nigh irrefragable proof” standard required to establish bad faith. A contractor might also attempt to argue that, even without evidence of bad faith, the government failed to act in accordance with its duty of good faith and fair dealing, which is a different and less demanding legal standard.
To repeat, I am by no means unsympathetic to those university leaders who face the difficult challenge of balancing their need to adhere to legal restrictions and cooperate with government, on the one hand, with their commitment, on the other, to educational integrity and academic freedom. It’s not easy. That said, however, it’s as much a fool’s errand for higher education leaders to believe the Trump administration can be successfully appeased as it would be for Zelensky to accept assurances from Putin that he would honor a unilateral Ukrainian ceasefire. At a bare minimum I wish Armstrong had suggested in her letter that, just perhaps, university attorneys would be examining options. I would hope her administration might consider challenging the government’s action, if not in a court of law then in the court of public opinion. Instead, I’m afraid, we may be getting yet another example of the sort of anticipatory obedience that the AAUP has warned against.
This is all the more problematic because, as should be obvious by now, antisemitism — which is a genuine concern at Columbia and elsewhere in higher education — is not really the issue. As the Columbia Spectator reports, Rep. Jerry Nadler, my college classmate who represents the district in which Columbia is located, and Rep. Adriano Espalliat, issued a statement declaring that the cuts were really about “the Trump administration’s war on education and science.”
“If the Trump administration were as serious about anti-Semitism as they claim, they would not have filled their ranks with unapologetic antisemites,” Nadler and Espalliat wrote. “The $400 million in grants cut today support the discovery of life-saving cures and critical research. Slashing this funding will not protect the Jewish students Trump claims to defend but will instead undermine their academic futures.”
The representatives wrote that “Anti-Semitism is a real issue – not just a ploy to slash federal funding,” and that “Jewish students have a right to education without the fear of physical violence or hateful rhetoric.” . . .
“Today’s announcement does nothing to keep Jewish students safe and sends a chilling message that universities must align with the MAGA agenda or face financial ruin,” Nadler and Espalliat wrote.
One might compare Columbia’s stance (or lack thereof) to that of Georgetown Law dean William Treanor’s exemplary response to rogue US attorney Ed Martin’s demand that the law school stop teaching “DEI principles.” In a tersely written and uncompromising letter that invoked both academic freedom and the school’s Jesuit principles, Dean Treanor curtly dismissed Martin’s outrageous demands as a brazen violation of the First Amendment.
Another Georgetown professor, political scientist Dan Nexon, also hit the nail on the head in his assessment of the attack on Columbia’s funding:
I am absolutely not someone who sees every accusation of left-wing antisemitism as some kind of Zionist smear. I even know some people with connections to that ‘crusade’ who are genuinely concerned about the treatment of Jewish students. But, as far as I am concerned, it is also blindingly obvious that we are witnessing a craven, cynical effort to a) destroy the independence of higher education and b) shut down criticisms of Israel’s fascist government.
The Trump administration’s announced intention to yank $400 million in funds and grants from Columbia University further gives the game away. Columbia caved to outside pressure and cracked down on the protests. It is already under intense pressure—from its board, donors, and other stakeholders—to adjust its policies. How would gutting Columbia’s operating budget have a positive effect on this process? The idea is only marginally more credible than the claim that crippling the Ukrainian military is the best way to achieve peace between Russia and Ukraine.
Can Columbia afford to cave any more? Can higher education? Once again, as the AAUP put it back in 1956 in its report on the impact of the McCarthyite purges of that era,
We cannot censure the justified public interest in colleges and universities, or be unmindful of the extremely difficult task confronting academic administrations that seek to preserve educational and research opportunities in order to serve the general welfare in spite of the suspicions of a public which, at times, has been confused by complicated issues or led astray by demagogic appeals. The temptation to yield a little in order to preserve a great deal is strong. . . . Yet to yield a little is, in such matters, to run the risk of sacrificing all. . . .
We cannot accept an educational system that is subject to the irresponsible push and pull of contemporary controversies; and we deem it to be the duty of all elements in the academic community— faculty, trustees, officials, and, as far as possible, students—to stand their ground firmly even while they seek, with patient understanding, to enlarge and deepen popular comprehension of the nature of academic institutions and of society’s dependence upon unimpaired intellectual freedom.
Contributing editor Hank Reichman is professor emeritus of history at California State University, East Bay; former AAUP vice-president and chair of the AAUP Foundation; and from 2012-2021 Chair of AAUP’s Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure. His book, The Future of Academic Freedom, based in part on posts to this blog, was published in 2019. His Understanding Academic Freedom was published in October, 2021; a second edition will be published this month.
At what point is there going to be a unified response by higher education administrators, faculty, students, and, hopefully, enlightened trustees to these ongoing attacks by Trump and his administration? I read recently in the Philadelphia Inquirer that the University of Pennsylvania medical school is reducing the size of its incoming class by about a third due to reductions in federal grant money. Our next generation of professionals, in all fields, is on the chopping block of MAGA ideology and vindictiveness. There must be a coming together of all of us in academia, joined by concerned citizens, in directly confronting this political assault.
Amen!
When we studied Huxley and Orwell at school and college more than half a century ago, we debated which theory of the two would finally take hold. Surprisingly, it was both, in equal measure. I can’t bring to mind anything worthwhile that was done since those days to treat the malaise. Everything was done to bring it on. In the mid-Fifties, Justice Learned Hand warned us that “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.” He was reacting to a fait accompli. School teacher John Taylor Gatto described the calamitous failure of school education, but no one in academe has had either the backbone or the insights to come clean about the global failure of tertiary education led by the United States. The concern of academics is always about THEIR liberties, not the liberties of the people and the nation. They’ll pay the price for that selfish mistake. It’s already started.
Professor Reichman is apparently upset that Trump’s administration has cancelled $400 million dollars in federal grants to Columbia. He asserts in his first sentence that this grant revocation is “arbitrary.” That contention, of course, assumes that the cancellation was – by the definition of arbitrary – some random act of whim. It wasn’t. On the contrary, it was a thoughtful political act specifically designed to correct a wrong.
Farther down in the article, Professor Reichman asserts that the Trump administration uses the university as a “political punching bag.” This metaphor, of course, implies that Columbia is somehow an innocent “victim” of the Trump administration’s malfeasance. The glaring problem with such a characterization is that it ignores Columbia’s culpability in violating federal law by failing to protect its students. Paying the “victim card” here, where there is dereliction of duty, is beyond disingenuous.
Professor Reichman’s position in this blog requires that one must put aside the reality of what has been going on at Columbia: That there is, and has been, a disgraceful problem at Columbia; that Jewish students have been repeatedly subjected to proscribed code-of-conduct violations (harassment, bullying, intimidation, etc.); and that Jewish students have been subjected to unlawful criminal behavior (impermissible physical contact, safety threats, building blockages, property damage, unlawful trespassing, etc.)
And even more disturbing, one must put aside the reality that Columbia’s administration has not shown a sufficient willingness or even an ability to address the problem. Indeed, it appears that the Columbia administration’s preferred approach to unruly and wrongful behavior has been the proverbial “head in the sand” (i.e., let the masked pro-Palestinian mobs protest however they want; let other students’ rights be damned.).
Confirming this distressing ineptitude, interim president Katrina Armstrong acknowledged – in a breathtakingly honest email – that Columbia’s disciplinary process “previously only existed on paper.” Let those words sink in for a moment. The president’s statement here is the equivalent of the “smoking gun.” Her words unambiguously expose the university’s nonfeasance and shatter all attempts – as in this blog – to gloss over Columbia’s complicity.
The good news is – given president Armstrong’s new commitments – that it now appears – despite all the hand wringing and teeth gnashing by some blog posters – that Trump’s withholding of grant monies has had its very purpose fulfilled. It has seriously motivated those in power to – at long last – pay attention to the well-being of their Jewish students; and it has kick started a much needed fresh approach to repel some of the craziness that has been going on at Columbia.
Two final thoughts:
1.) Academics must learn to recognize the difference between free speech (worthy of protection) and wrongful conduct (not worthy of protection). All too often, the line between these two concepts gets blurred. And, unfortunately, some uninformed blog posters want to impute free speech protections to all protest behavior… including wrongful conduct.
2.) The sky is not falling. Rather than embrace this “woe is us” mentality and criticize the Trump administration’s successful approach to getting Columbia to enforce its rules, perhaps Professor Reichman and other well-respected academics might step up and offer their very own personal solution to what has been a shameful situation.
I would have assumed that readers would recognize that the adjective “arbitrary” refers to the fact that this action was taken without even a semblance of due process. If the rationale is that the university has violated the anti-discrimination standards of Title VI, then a hearing is required for the government to make that case. That might be difficult, however, if only because no one has alleged that there has been any antisemitic discrimination in the administration of these research grants. Which, of course, leads back to the main point: what on earth does terminating research grants do to protect Jewish students? And if, as “Bob” contends, the Trump approach has been “successful” then why is there still a problem? Yes, there is a distinction between speech and conduct. But what in the conduct of this research merits its cancellation? Have you even considered the possibility that some, maybe many, of the impacted researchers might even be Jewish?
Thank you Professor Reichman for your response.
It appears from your reply (as well as your original post) that you are more concerned with the loss of the $400 million dollar grant than with the underlying disgraceful behavior at Columbia that justified its revocation.
With that troubling observation in mind, here are my thoughts addressing your points:
We both agree that noncompliance with Title VI is the legal justification that supports the government’s cancellation of the grant. And we agree that Columbia is entitled to a due process hearing. Whether Columbia chooses to have one is yet to be seen. But given all the overwhelming evidence against their position, it is unlikely that Columbia would get a favorable ruling; and, as such, they just might think an appeal is not worth the expense.
Where we differ is in your apparent argument that the only justification for cancelling the grants is a Title VI violation in the grants themselves or in the administration of the grants. That premise is false. While a Title VI problem with the grants is certainly a basis for revocation, it is not the only permissible justification. A Title VI violation by the school or any of its parts can be enough to legally halt federal funds to that school.
Since, as noted, the enforcement of Title VI law is much broader than your narrow interpretation, your two questions asking where discrimination exists in the grants or what conduct in the grants merits cancellation are rendered irrelevant and moot.
You also ask how termination of the grants would help Jewish students. I am seriously surprised that you would pose that question. I thought that the answer was all too obvious. But if you really need to know, then I would submit that as a direct consequence of the grant revocation, Columbia officials have now promised to vigorously enforce all its rules as well as its code of conduct. Since it was the absence of any said enforcement that permitted the multiple offensives listed in my comment, this new attitude will, hopefully, prevent (or at least minimize) new wrongs.
You further asked if Trump’s approach is successful, then “Why is there still a problem?” Again, I am surprised by the question. I thought this answer is also obvious. Nonetheless, I will submit to you that the word success is measured in degrees. Going from having a disciplinary process that “previously only existed on paper” per president Armstrong to a promise of strict enforcement is quite an achievement. And, as you are well aware, all these things take time… the change in attitude has just started.
Two final thoughts:
1.) I agree that losing the grant money is a shame and that it may hurt some innocents. But, in the scheme of things in Columbia’s world, it is really a very small price to pay for achieving the greater good of getting Columbia to – at long last – aggressively fight the scourge of anti-Semitism on its campus.
2.) Your obvious displeasure at the Trump administration for rightfully exercising its political muscle to get Title VI compliance – and not at Columbia’s distressing nonfeasance – seems, to me, altogether misplaced.