Trump Attacks Columbia as He Launches War on Universities
The Trump Administration has canceled $400 million of government grants to Columbia University and warned that this is only the “first round of cuts”. The official justification is that Columbia must be punished for tolerating antisemitic behavior on campus.
The massive funding cut for Columbia is part of a sweeping attack on academia. The Trump administration has identified nine other prominent universities as the next targets. The President is claiming, falsely, that the leaders at these major institutions are anti-Jewish, so he can justify waging war on them.
Trump has already seized control of key government agencies such as the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Now, the President is going after the elements of civil society that could be centers of opposition to his rule.
The President intends to weaken or even cripple liberal universities, by cutting off Federal funding for specious reasons, and cow them into submission. The President aims to prevent academics from criticizing him and students from demonstrating against him. There are signs that his tactics may already be working.
A Body Blow for Columbia
For Columbia, and many other leading universities, Federal grants are a major source of funding. Last year, Columbia received $1.3 billion in government grants--20% of its $6.6 billion in revenue. That is not surprising. Columbia is a pre-eminent center of research for medical issues…and climate change. The National Institute of Health is the largest source of its funds, followed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Columbia is being hit with a double whammy. The government had previously announced other reductions in research funding, so the total hit to the university could be $600 million. That is almost half of Columbia’s research funding and 9% of its total revenues. Furthermore, the government agencies indicated that they might slash even more research grants.
A Kangaroo Court “Review”
The Administration has shown that it is acting in bad faith, by cutting the grants after a ludicrously short review period. The government announced its review on Monday, March 3. Four days later, on Friday, March 7, the government said that Columbia had not taken corrective action, so it was canceling the $400 million. Obviously, the university did not have time to respond.
Columbia became a target because of protests at Barnard College that took place a couple of weeks ago, according to press reports. But that is a dubious rationale, because Barnard controls its own affairs. Although Barnard is one of Columbia’s undergraduate colleges, it is an autonomous institution for women. Barnard has a separate administration, admissions process and endowment.
Furthermore, the protests arose because Barnard expelled two students who disrupted a class on Israel. That hardly seems antisemitic.
Pro-Palestinian Protest at Columbia/Getty Images
Columbia’s Hard Line on Protests
It’s also surprising that the government singled out Columbia, because its administration took forceful action against protestors.
Last year, Columbia tolerated a large pro-Palestinian encampment on its main plaza for 14 days. However, most protestors were peacefully exercising their right to express political opinions. Some used slogans such as “from the river to the sea”, which arouse strong emotions but hold different meanings for different groups. A fair number of protestors were Jewish students who think the Israeli government does not treat Palestinians fairly. They apparently felt safe taking part in the protests.
However, some protestors (who were not necessarily Columbia students) called for Zionists to be killed, which crossed the line to inciting violence. Certain protestors occupied buildings or disrupted classes, which is an impermissible imposition on other students. There was some pushing and shoving, which is deplorable. Still, no serious injuries were reported.
Minouche Shafik, Columbia’s president, eventually called in the police, twice, to remove the tents in the encampment and to evict those occupying buildings. That was an unusual decision. Most other academic leaders chose not to ask for help from the police, fearing that such a move could inflame the situation.
In fact, using the police to disperse the protestors sparked a huge controversy at Columbia. Shafik resigned because of the blowback from faculty and students.
The university has gone through several lockdown periods. Security guards now carefully control access to the campus, limiting it to students, faculty and invited guests. Although the protests continue, they are limited to certain designated outdoor spaces.
Hurting Jewish Students, Not Helping Them
Over 22% of Columbia’s undergraduates are Jewish, which is one of the highest percentages in the Ivy League. And 15% of graduate students are Jewish. Why is the government punishing an institution with many Jewish students?
The grad students will particularly suffer. Columbia and other universities have announced hiring freezes and accepted fewer grad students, in reaction to other reductions in Federal grants. The New York Times reported that some universities have made the painful decision to revoke offers to candidates for graduate research programs because of the funding squeeze.
The Trump Administration has chosen to ignore these predictable side effects, despite its professed concern for the welfare of Jewish students.
Why Target Columbia?
Why did the Administration move against Columbia first? We don’t know what takes place in the dark recesses of Donald Trump’s mind, but here are some possible factors.
· Columbia is a liberal university, and it is in New York City. Trump hates his former hometown, and the feeling is reciprocated.
· Columbia is a leading center for research on climate change. Trump no doubt considers research on this “hoax” to be “waste”.
· The university is also a major center for medical research. Robert Kennedy, Jr., the head of HHS, is not deeply committed to such research, to put it mildly.
Broad Assault on Elite Universities
The Trump Administration has targeted nine other prestigious institutions for possible funding cuts, including UC Berkeley, Harvard, and Johns Hopkins. All these institutions are in Democratic-led states or the District of Columbia.
Trump is taking draconian steps, but many Congressional Republicans share his hatred of science, research and academia. They think that “Marxist” professors have infiltrated many campuses and turned their students away from proper, conservative values. They loathe the “DEI” movement because it emphasizes that racism and slavery have been major currents in our history.
Many Republican politicians, unfortunately, do not seem interested in protecting First Amendment rights or our tradition of academic freedom. A student protest is a classic example of the rights to assemble and to express political opinions. However, many Republicans seem eager for the government to intrude upon private universities and dictate what forms of speech they can tolerate.
A Stalinist Knock on the Door
Last weekend, in a shocking incident, ICE agents arrested a Palestinian grad student who had played a major role in the protests at Columbia. Mahmoud Khalil had completed his master’s degree in December and lived in a Columbia dorm with his American wife, who was eight months pregnant. Khalil had served as a negotiator for pro-Palestinian groups during the protests; he did not engage in violence.
ICE agents entered the dorm and told Khalil that his student visa had expired. Khalil responded that he had a green card, not a student visa. Instead of backing off, the ICE agents seized his green card and took him away. ICE is holding Khalil at a facility in Louisiana.
It is extremely rare for officials to revoke a green card. Usually, that happens only if the holder has committed a serious crime and only after a hearing conducted by an immigration. ICE has not followed due process in arresting and jailing Khalil without a hearing. The government has incarcerated Khalil, and may deport him, as punishment for expressing his political opinions. The goal is to terrify other protestors. This is Stalinist behavior.
Chipping Away at Endowments
In the first Trump Administration, House Republicans imposed a 1.5% tax on the endowments of some leading, liberal universities. There is a myth that universities are using their endowments to build fancy dormitories for spoiled students and support lavish lifestyles for their faculty. In fact, universities rely on their endowments to fund a significant part of their operations, including scholarships.
They are not hoarding their endowments. For example, Columbia follows the prudent approach of spending 4.5-5% of its endowed funds. That is a reasonable assumption for a long-term return on investment.
But House Republicans have floated the idea of raising the tax to 12-20%. Assuming a return of 5% a year, that level of taxation would wipe out an endowment in a few years. That would force colleges to raise tuition and cut back or eliminate scholarships.
Sabotaging America’s Future
Our top universities are the US’s crown jewels and the envy of the world. They have made America dominant in scientific and medical research, which has led to the discovery of new drugs and created business opportunities.
They are engines of economic growth and social mobility. Scholarships from leading universities have allowed lower-income and minority students to launch successful careers and move up the social ladder. At Harvard, for example, 15% of students are the first member of their family to attend college. Many pay little to nothing for their education.
Our educational institutions attract bright, ambitious foreign students. Many of them stay in the US and make great contributions to our society.
A rational government would help these institutions, not attack them.
The Chinese must be rubbing their hands with glee as they watch this assault on higher education. Meanwhile, the Chinese have poured vast resources into expanding their universities. They are narrowing the gap with us.
But up until now, the US has enjoyed two precious advantages over the Chinese: free speech and academic freedom. Those traditions truly made America great.
Will we keep them, or lose them?
The Wall Street Democrat