We won’t dwell on the recent incidents at Barnard College—other sources have covered that farce thoroughly. However, we strongly disagree with the Barnard administration’s decision to promise no disciplinary action for dispersal. We note that this leniency (solely for “presence in the building”) leaves open the possibility that those responsible for vandalizing walls and assaulting an employee to the point of hospitalization would still face disciplinary action up to and including financial restitution, suspension, expulsion, and potential civil action and criminal charges.

This week, we turn to a far more alarming issue than a mob of cosplaying “wannable Hamasniks”. Last December, Max Eden, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, published an op-ed in the Washington Examiner titled “A Comprehensive Guide to Overhauling Higher Education”. Largely ignored at the time for its far-fetched rhetoric, today, it appears prophetic. Let’s examine its implications.

The op-ed

We encourage you to read the op-ed in full. Eden calls for incoming Education Secretary Linda McMahon to “scare universities straight” by targeting a high-profile institution. His chosen target? “She should simply destroy Columbia University.” Eden is not a fringe voice. Kevin Carey of the Chronicle of Higher Education has described him as “to education what Stephen Miller is to immigration.”

The piece details how McMahon, best known for her ownership of the World Wrestling Federation, should “give [colleges] the body slamming they deserve” for “kowtow[ing] to pro-genocidal campus quad glampers” by: 

• Cutting federal funding
• Enforcing Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) vs. Harvard and destroy DEI on campus
• Removing foreign money from universities
• Shaking up college accreditation
• Launch a new open-access publicly-funded university

What makes this alarming is that several of Eden’s proposals are already materializing. Eden recommended an indirect cost recovery cut to 15% for federal research grants. That is exactly what happened. Eden recommended the Trump administration use SFFA vs. Harvard as a casus belli to go after DEI programs. That is exactly what happened.

The gathering storm

We have to assess the broader implications. As we have warned and predicted, the Trump administration is only getting started. While federal actions to cut indirect cost recovery rates at the National Institutes of Health and the anti-DEI Dear College Letter affect all universities, Columbia stands uniquely vulnerable.

As of this week, Columbia is the target of three federal probes, all triggered by a Trump Executive Order to combat antisemitism:

• Department of Justice’s task force dedicated to rooting out antisemitism initially focused on ten universities
• Department of Education’s investigation into antisemitism at five universities
• Department of Health and Human Services’ investigation into antisemitism at four medical schools

Columbia is the only university named in all three investigations—a terrible trifecta—which leads us to the unappetizing conclusion that our alma mater will bear the brunt of whatever the Trump administration decides on.

So what does this mean?

We noticed that the Trump EO invokes 18 U.S. Code § 241, known as the Conspiracy Against Rights statute—a law originally used to prosecute the Ku Klux Klan. According to the DOJ, this law does not even require proof of an overt act, just an agreement to violate civil rights. Race-conscious actions on Columbia’s campus, including restricting access to campus spaces based on race—as this student and these faculty members appeared to do—could now be considered criminal acts under the laws originally used against the KKK.

The Trump administration indicates it expects the Title VI allegations to be straightforward to prove. The Department of Education’s press release states “these investigations build upon the foundation work of the House Committee of Education and Workforce… which found that university administrations ‘overwhelmingly failed’ to protect or support their Jewish students.”

The government could convincingly argue:

• Discriminatory actions. For over a year, students, faculty, and staff have blocked individuals from university spaces based on religion and national origin, with ample video evidence.
• Failure to enforce non-discrimination policies. Violators have faced little or no punishment, and faculty governance bodies have actively “obstructed plans to discipline students.” The newly established Office of Institutional Equity is starting to show some teeth—but as of this writing, the protestors involved with last spring’s encampment and Hamilton Hall occupation are still tied up with the University Judicial Board (and for the record, we still predict—and we desperately hope we are wrong—that the UJB will either grant amnesty or a prescribe a slap on the wrist as in each case it and its predecessors have ever adjudicated in history.)
• Race-based hiring practices. We actually believe these may be of even greater risk under the Trump administration than failing to discipline protestors. Columbia has used tools and rubrics that mathematically preference candidates based on race and minority status, which have since been taken offline but could still be scrutinized. Other universities are already starting to face a wave of lawsuits on these topics.

For many in academia, the idea that universities could be accused of systematic racism might seem like a stretch. But maybe not. The courts have generally supported these interpretations: earlier this month, a federal judge lambasted Cooper Union for suggesting that the “Jewish students should have hidden upstairs or left the building, or that locking the library doors was enough to discharge its obligations under Title VI.”

Perhaps the most interesting analogy that we have heard is that the Trump administration might treat universities the same way prior administrations have treated police departments that engage in unlawful hiring or discriminatory practices like stop and frisk.

Thought experiment: the “police department crackdown” model

We do not mean to sound alarmist and the following is speculation, so treat it as such. Eden specifically calls out the Biden administration’s actions against the Durham, NC fire department for discriminatory hiring. While no analogy is perfect, and it is impossible to project exactly what direction Trump officials fire at, if the Trump administration does follow the Biden and Obama administration’s playbook on cracking down on police departments for civil rights violations, those settlements have usually resulted in:

• Removal of senior officials
• Civil rights offenders fired (often losing pensions)
• Changes to core operations (hiring, promotions, etc.)
• Changes to internal investigations and disciplinary processes
• Criminal charges in extreme cases
• Invasive and ongoing monitoring (think “receivership”)

Eden clearly expects this. He writes that “McMahon should initiate a never-ending compliance review to ensure that Harvard follows the law. She should assign Office of Civil Rights employees to the Harvard admissions office and direct the university to hold no admissions meetings without their physical presence. The Office of Civil Rights should be copied on every email correspondence.”

And as for criminal charges, he goes even further, writing that “the Justice Department should thoroughly explore indicting former Columbia President Lee Bollinger… Perhaps the college presidents could learn a valuable lesson from the sight of him in an orange jumpsuit.”  

These calls for action beggar belief—and to be clear, we strongly oppose them. But the various organs of federal power seem to be following the “Eden Plan” replete with federal investigations. And for that reason, we know our leadership is taking these threats seriously, as President Armstrong has indicated.

What should we do?

Columbia is the only university facing simultaneous investigations by the DOJ, DOE, and HHS. Columbia depends on the federal government’s funding and facilitation for over 55% of its budget. The gravity of this situation cannot be overstated. Simply put, there is no place to hide. The responsible faculty who provided the leadership and saved us in 1968 have not yet emerged.

Columbia’s leaders have a choice to make. Do they think this is just posturing and ignore it? We do not have insight into what is happening behind the scenes: have the announced federal investigations started? Have subpoenas been issued? The DOJ’s press release merely stated that Assistant Attorney General Leo Terrell’s task force will visit campuses and “consider whether remedial action is warranted,” which is far less aggressive language than could be used. Is there an argument to take a “wait and see” approach, perhaps seeing if the court-imposed temporary blocks on NIH and DEI actions persist?

While we appreciate concerns about “anticipatory obedience” to the Trump administration, we note that federal investigations tend to be aggressive and result in major financial settlements and prosecutions.  Assuming these investigations get underway, we expect that given how the Trump administration (and courts) are currently interpreting the laws, it will be difficult to mount an effective defense under the previous paradigm.

Therefore, our hope is that Columbia makes an aggressive attempt to settle them quickly—ideally over the summer, by which time a “wait and see” approach will play out anyway. The risks are too great to ignore. The first university to settle will likely receive the most favorable terms. Prolonging the fight or attempting to play chicken with the Trump administration could result in prolonged instability and harsher consequences. The disruption that will come with the settlement (as with any such settlement, we would expect that the DOJ, HHS, and ED will require substantial changes in personnel and processes) is better absorbed as one-and-done versus death by a thousand cuts.

As we have said over and over again, Columbia University matters for the United States and for the world. We educate leaders. We cure diseases. We invent revolutionary new technologies—many with national security implications. We teach and defend the values of the free world through one of the few Great Books curricula left in the United States. This great institution must not be allowed to fail, whether by commission, omission, neglect, or as an unmanaged outcome.

We’ll spend the next week trying to think of some way out of this that is consistent with Columbia’s values, but there will likely be no good choices from here.

 News Roundup

– February 28, 2025. The Department of Education released a frequently asked questions document for their Dear Colleague Letter, providing valuable insight into how they are interpreting and applying the law. The guidance significantly narrows the justifications for using race in educational policies, permitting it only to remedy specific instances of past discrimination by the same institution. Another notable point is the explicit warning against using essays or indirect methods to reintroduce racial preferences in admissions, stating that “what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.” Additionally, the document underscores the legal risks of race-based DEI initiatives and categorically deems racially segregated activities, including graduation ceremonies and housing, as “segregationist activities” and therefore violations of federal law.

– February 28, 2025. The Spectator shared this week that Columbia and Barnard have been listed by the US State Department as two of the 19 universities listed as Fulbright Top Producing Institutions for the 2024 to 2025 academic school year. Columbia has now received this distinction ten years a row, while for Barnard, it was its eighth year in a row. Receiving this honor means that both Columbia and Barnard were among the highest producers of “scholar and student recipients of Fulbright fellowships.” Student recipients can mean “graduating college seniors, graduate students, and young artists or professionals.” Scholars can mean any faculty members, professors, artists, and professionals.

– February 27, 2025. The WSJ published an op-ed this week about the expulsion of two Barnard College students, calling them “wannabe Hamasniks,” for disrupting class. However, by Wednesday, “masked anti-Israel activists” went into a Barnard building petitioning for the expulsions to be taken back. According to Barnard, a member of staff was “physically assaulted” and went to the hospital for treatment following the altercation. These protesters stayed for hours in the building, apparently shouting for Hamas “resistance.” In response, Barnard canceled class but did not remove them. The school’s first statement released following the expulsion was, “When rules are broken, when there is no remorse, no reflection, and no willingness to change, we must act.” 

– February 27, 2025. The NY Post ran an article this week sharing that a Jewish advocacy group, StopAntisemitism, demanded the Department of Justice defund Columbia and Barnard College over its “failure to protect students” from “hostile and dangerous” protesters. They also asked for the Justice Department to take precautions to stop future similar incidents, including by “launching an investigation” looking at the Students for Justice in Palestine student group. The executive director of the group, Liora Rez, wrote, “The university administration has completely failed to protect Jewish and Israeli students, faculty, and staff, allowing a hostile and dangerous environment to fester unchecked.”

– February 26, 2025. The Manhattan Institute’s City Journal published an article on the “Fellow-to-Faculty pipeline” that they perceive as a threat to academic freedom, claiming it promotes a “stifling orthodoxy.” For example, the University of California has a President’s Postdoctoral Fellowship Program which acts as a “side-door” into faculty roles. These programs eliminate the fulsome competitive process of a “normal” search, but the fellowship candidates often wind up being pushed into tenure-track faculty roles, again bypassing the intense competition and rigor of a normal search process. One sociology professor notes on the process, “What I wonder about is whether there is an ideological litmus test—whether there are any apolitical people, or political moderates, who are selected.” A philosophy professor observed, “There are rules that are written down and there are unwritten rules, and it seems to me that one of the unwritten rules is an ideological litmus test.” The article’s author concludes that these “overt litmus tests” are totally unconstitutional and notes that academics from different points in the political spectrum agree diversity statements contradict our First Amendment.

– February 26, 2025. The Spectator published an article this week offering some more detail into the Barnard protests over the two students expelled this week. They sat outside dean Leslie Grinage’s office as a sit-in, demanding the “immediate reversal” of the decision. After more than six hours, they finally left around 10:30 pm after a “tentative agreement” to speak with Barnard President Laura Rosenbury and Leslie Grinage on Thursday. Rosenbury released a Statement that according to “federal law,” Barnard wasn’t able to make any comment on the “alleged expulsions.” Barnard asked faculty with classes after 5pm in Milbank that Wednesday to relocate or to cancel the session. 

– February 25, 2025. The Spectator published a detailed and well-researched explainer on the University Senate (ours is here). There were some factual errors in the first posting, which we are gratified to see were quickly corrected. We are struck by this comment by Senate Executive Committee Chair Jeanine D’Armiento (whom we respect a great deal for the terrific job she did during the COVID era): “She added that one thing that has been ‘incredibly frustrating’ for her is the tendency for some to argue that instances in which the Rules have been violated suggest a need for the senate to change the Rules. ‘The Rules are there, but we can’t stop bad things,’ D’Armiento said.” Actually, that is exactly what the University Senate did in 1988. Due to poor drafting, a glaring loophole, and lax enforcement of the Rules as they then stood, dozens of students were amnestied or given token punishments for blockades of Hamilton Hall in 1985 and 1987. The University Senate back then passed a resolution that stated “the current University Rules of Conduct have proved inadequate to deter disruptions of University activities” and then “directed the rules committee to rework the rules to deter such disruptions.”