When President Trump issued an Ultimatum on Columbia University – he canceled funds of $ 400 million and demanded overlapping his admission and disciplinary rules – he launched an institution in an extraordinary crisis.
According to legal scientists, this could also violate the law and the institute.
“The government has never brought such a lever effect against the institution of higher education,” said Lee C. Bollinger, former President of Columbia University, who resigned after a 21 -year term in 2023. “The university is in an incredibly unprecedented and dangerous situation.” It is an existential threat. ”
Trump’s administration accused Columbia of not protecting students and faculties from “anti-Semitic violence and harassment”, especially in the months of the Gaze War, lit the Pro-Palestinian protest movement on the campus, which then spread throughout the country. The government said its requirements are intended to protect Jewish students from discrimination.
So far, Columbia has publicly responded with caution and respect. The university is “determined to cooperate with the Federal Government to deal with his legitimate concerns,” wrote temporary President Columbia Dr. Katrina Armstrong in a letter to the university community.
The reaction concerned some legal scientists because they believe that the government drastically crossed its authority.
“It is mysterious that they did not file a lawsuit in which they will be very likely to win,” said Leah Litman, professor at the University of Michigan Law School.
Genevieve Lakier, a professor at the Faculty of Law of the University of Chicago, said that Columbia could worry about escalating the battle with Trump’s administration. “The institution is employed with very intelligent lawyers,” she said. “I have to assume that they are afraid that other shoes that could drop are worse.”
Some experts in free expression said that the tactics of administration violate the protection of the first amendment. “The Supreme Court imposed a very high burden on the government if it seeks to interfere with the main decisions of academic freedom,” said prof. Bollinger.
Other legal scholars stated that the government did not comply with the procedure and restrictions explicitly stipulated in the Federal Act on Civil Rights of 1964, which was written by guarantees to prevent governments in the use of federal funds in a harmful way.
In his statement on Sunday evening, Trump’s administration said he acted correctly. The government followed all the right right to hold Columbia University to be responsible for illegal anti -Semitism that allowed itself on its campus, “said Madi Biedermann, a spokesman for the Ministry of Education.
The threat of government is only one front in the ongoing crisis in Columbia stems from pro-Palestinian protests. This month, US immigration officials arrested two demonstrators. And Dr. Armstrong confirmed last week that internal security agents entered the campus with federal commands and searched two dormitory rooms.
It is also part of the wider campaign of Trump’s administration focused on university institutions. Shortly after joining office, Mr. Trump announced the creation of a federal working group in the fight against anti -Semitism, especially on university campuses. And after announcing your plan to cancel grants and contracts with Columbia warned the government 59 more university that a similar fate can wait for them. Among these schools were Harvard, Cornell and Johns Hopkins and state schools, including the Arizona State University and the University of Tennessee.
For some students, parents and faculties, Columbia University often failed to find a balance between respecting the rights of protesters and providing a sense of security of Jewish people.
Last spring, the protesters camped on the lawn in the center of the campus and used a language that some characterized as critical of the Israeli government and that others believe they were anti -Semitate. Some Jewish students described that they were afraid to walk freely on academic soil. After almost two weeks, they confiscated the protesters of control of the academic building before the university called the city police department, which arrested more than 100 people.
Since the return of President Trump to the office, the riots have escalated after a period of relative silence. The day after his inauguration, the protesting of the Israeli class of history disrupted students and distributed flyers with incendiary reports. Two students at Barnard College were released, associated with Columbia. In February students protested Ejection.
Then, at the beginning of this month, Trump’s administration announced That this considered orders to stop work for $ 51.4 million in contracts between Columbia and the Federal Government.
“Anti -Semitism – such as racism – is a spiritual and moral illness that ill society and kills people with deadly deaths comparable to the deadliest Mory of history,” said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services, in the report. “In recent years, censorship and false narratives about the awakening culture have transformed our large universities into greenhouses for this deadly and virulent plague.”
Government anti -Semitism would also conduct a “comprehensive review” of essential federal grant obligations to Columbia University to ensure that the university will fulfill its “liability for civil rights”, the announcement said.
The review quickly intensified. Just four days later the administration announced “Immediate cancellation“About 400 million dollars about Federal grants and Columbia contracts.
And a few days later the government sent A far -reaching list of requirements that she said that Columbia had to meet before we consider negotiations on the renewal of money. It urged the university to formalize its definition of anti -Semitism, forbade the wearing of masks “intended to cover or intimidate” and place the school department in the Middle East, South Asian and African studies in “academic reception”.
In particular, Trump’s administration quoted the provisions of the Civil Rights Act in criticizing Columbia. The relevant part of the law, head VI, prohibits discrimination by institutions that receive public money and require federal agencies that institutions will be contrary to working with it before trying to eliminate funding.
However, some experts believe that Trump’s administration has skipped demanding mandates for civil rights, which must be carried out before the funds can be canceled.
If the government wants to claim that the institution has not fulfilled the anti-discrimination law-or exhaustion of all attempts to obtain voluntary compliance-according to the federal status, call hearing and provide evidence. It is then entrusted to alert the relevant congress committees that are going to end the funds, allowing the legislators to intervene for 30 days and seek remedy.
The only means that can be reduced are the means directly associated with the source of civil rights violations.
“All these things realized how drastic these financing problems are and how much they can influence the university,” said prof. Litman. “This process creates opportunities to make a school to comply with.”
Usually “it takes years to gain any recognition or solution to the complaint,” said Janel George, associate professor at the Faculty of Law Georgetown University.
The speed with which the situation of Columbia was solved, and the result is surprising, prof. George said, adding that this process is intentionally designed as slow, because the aim is not to punish, but to give adherence to the organization. “The termination of funds is considered the last option,” she said. “It’s very, very rare.”
On Sunday, a spokesman for the Ministry of Education did not answer the question of whether the government specifically followed this process.
In addition, the remedies required by Trump’s administration exceed what the law allows, said Ilya Somin, professor at the Faculty of Law Antonin Scalia George Mason University. He quoted the introduction of the academic department in administration and demanded changes in the process of students’ discipline. “There is no doubt that it is far beyond the law,” he said. The internal functioning of the academic institution is not “something that should be under the control of the government”.
Although Trump’s administration specifically states head VI in its reports in its reports, it certainly did not state that it will terminate the funds under this law, leading to confusion among legal scientists. “I feel so injustice,” said prof. Lakier, “and it is worse that the administration clearly does not mention what the law will rely on.”
She said in any case she believes that government acts violate the first amendment.
For prof. Bollinger – who dedicated his academic career for promoting the first amendment and his administrative career supported the reach of the University of Columbia – Trump Administrations are deeply disturbing.
“Anyone who takes care of universities should be shocked by the seemingly obvious efforts of the government to interfere with academic decision -making,” he said.
“There are times when the rights we value will only survive if everyone adds to the effort to store them,” added prof. Bollinger. “It’s not just about Columbia and Columbia can’t do it herself.”
