Last month, Columbia University became the first institution to settle with Trump over allegations of antisemitism on campus, raising fears that other universities will be more likely to comply.
The deal, reached on July 23, involves the university paying $221 million to the administration to settle numerous civil-rights claims and employment probes.
In return, $400m in terminated research funding is being restored to Columbia, in what the government called an “historic settlement… to restore fairness, merit and safety in higher education”.
Wrapped up in the settlement were a slate of university concessions including new rules relating to protests on campus, hiring and the curriculum, as well as regulations governing student discipline and surveillance.
Critics have argued that the university’s acquiescence – though not incomprehensible in the circumstances – will “embolden” the Trump administration’s ongoing assault on higher education.
“Weak-kneed institutions will be more likely to comply to the administration,” a US university leader told The PIE News under the condition of anonymity.
“I was disappointed that such a prominent university would cave to the Trump administration’s brazen overreach… I’ve heard, unsurprisingly, examples of Columbia alums and current students who are nothing short of indignant,” they added.
Just one week after Columbia’s deal, Brown University reached its own federal settlement over similar disputes about DEI admissions practices and access to student data.
Only Harvard has sued the White House in the courts, though recent rumours have suggested a $500m deal between Harvard and the government could be in the making. Meanwhile, in California, the administration is demanding that UCLA pays $1bn to restore its funding grants.
Columbia’s acquiescence … is likely to provide cover for the Trump administration’s ongoing, lawless assault on higher education
Knight Institute
The government attacks on many of the country’s leading institutions have left gaping holes in research funding and causing students to reconsider studying in the US.
“You add all of that to the visa revocations and the fearmongering and it’s not a pretty picture,” said the university leader.
“We’re hoping that younger students and their families recognise that this too shall pass, and that when this administration is in the dustbin of history US universities will reassert themselves as outstanding and appealing places to study,” they added.
The fallout from the settlement will become clearer as the academic year commences, not least for international students, who are one of the primary targets of the deal and whose presence in the agreement went somewhat underreported at the time.
Behind NYU and Northeastern, Columbia is home to the third largest international student population of any US university, which totalled nearly 17,000 students and scholars last year.
As mandated by the government, the Ivy League institution will reduce its “financial dependence on overwhelming international student enrolment” and “strengthen oversight” of the admissions process of overseas students.
This includes ensuring “international student-applicants are asked questions designed to elicit their reasons for wishing to study in the United States”, though how this will play out in practice remains to be seen.
“Processes will be established to provide that all students, international and domestic, are committed to the longstanding traditions of American universities,” it continues, with Columbia vowing to develop “training materials” to socialise students to campus norms.
Acting university president Claire Shipman said the agreement marked “an important step forward” after great scrutiny and instability, vowing that the deal safeguarded Columbia’s values and independence, and would allow its federal research partnership to continue.
Yet this has been heavily criticised by some Columbia alum, students and staff members.
“We are sympathetic to Columbia’s leaders, who are operating under extraordinary pressure, but we cannot agree that the settlement ‘protects the values that define us,’” wrote senior members of Columbia’s Knight First Amendment Institute, a legal nonprofit affiliated with the university.
In its second sentence, the agreement claims not to be “an admission”, stating that Columbia has not admitted wrongdoing to wide-ranging government allegations about DEI, pro-Palestinian protests and antisemitism.
However, the Knight Institute authors argue its “acquiescence” will nonetheless provide cover for Trump’s “ongoing, lawless assault on higher education”.
They raise concerns about new rules relating to student protest and discipline “that should be entirely the province of the university to decide”.
What’s more, “the settlement creates a monitoring and surveillance regime that is certain to chill the exercise of freedoms that are central to the university’s mission”, they claim.
Columbia University did not respond to The PIE’s requests for comment and has not released details of how it will “take steps to decrease financial dependence on international student enrolment”, though it is assumed it will will admit less international students from now on.
The authors also warn that the settlement’s “innocuous language” regarding asking students questions to elicit their reasons for studying in the US could be a way of holding Columbia accountable for admitting students who engage in protest, thus deterring the university from doing so.
Since this spring, the Trump administration has targeted international students for pro-Palestinian activism, namely high profile cases of students such as Mahmoud Khalil and Rümeysa Öztürk.
Critics have sued secretary of state Marco Rubio for his “unconstitutional” attempts at deportation based on free speech rights, warning that deals like Columbia’s will have a chilling effect on freedom of expression and interest in the US as a study destination.
