Last Friday, Columbia University announced a series of sweeping policy changes yesterday in response to the Trump administration’s demand letter and a threatened $400 million funding cut. You can—and should—review them yourself: Interim President Katrina Armstrong’s announcement, the summary of changes, and the official “fine print” itself.
For the past several weeks, we’ve remained intentionally quiet amid a climate of speculation and rumor. Now, with a clearer picture of recent developments, it’s time to weigh in on some extremely difficult decisions taken in one of Columbia’s darkest periods.
What Really Happened
While historians will write the final chapters, we have spoken to people who were “in the room” and they paint a different picture from what’s floating around social media. For months there has been a growing consensus within the University that clear and necessary governance reforms were needed—Stand Columbia, the House of Representatives’ Committee on Education & the Workforce, multiple internal petitions, and Columbia’s own Task Force on Antisemitism have all made largely overlapping recommendations. The experience for tens of thousands of Columbia students who just want a good education has not been “normal”, and the experience for Jewish and Israeli students in particular has been exceptionally difficult.
Rather than an adversarial showdown, the discussions created a “convening opportunity” that allowed Columbia’s leadership to seriously engage with the federal government and dramatically accelerate reforms, many of which were quietly underway—for example, Columbia began training special Public Safety officers months ago.
To be clear, there was no quid pro quo. The $400 million in federal funding was not part of the discussion; these policy changes were what the Trump administration described as “preconditions” for beginning future conversations. There was no “deal” at the end (although Education Secretary Linda McMahon has indicated talks were “on the right track”), but there were serious people engaging in good faith, which left all feeling satisfied that this stage is over.
Aside from people “in the room”, we also heard feedback from many faculty on campus. Even those faculty who favor reform had mixed feelings. Proponents feel that after seventeen long months of slow and often no movement, the events of this past week helped “unjam the system” and enabled a long-overdue first step forward. Critics believe the policy changes didn’t go far enough to justify the appearance of conceding to government pressure.
Even before the announcement, a number of critics emerged arguing that Columbia should not have acquiesced to any list as a matter of principle. This view ignores the reality that Columbia cannot exist as a modern research institution without federal funding, and that challenging the loss of all federal funding is unlikely to be successful or quick, and will quickly outstrip Columbia’s cash runway. As the Trustees wrote in an email to the community, this was a discussion with “agencies that serve as our regulators.”
Our view is that this is a modest “win-win” compared to the existential risk we would otherwise face. It is a tentative first step and much remains to be done. But everyone involved deserves credit for helping us get to this point.
Analyzing the Policy Changes
The announced reforms are sweeping and comprehensive and, we understand, accelerate many initiatives already underway. Some are clear improvements. The addition of thirty-six special Public Safety officers with arrest powers, similar to those employed by Cornell University or CUNY, should deter mobs of masked protestors who have long operated with impunity (taking over buildings, holding janitors hostage, destroying property). The key question will remain the political will to physically disperse and remove disruptors. Likewise, replacing the University Senate’s control of the University Judicial Board (UJB) via appointment power with Provost-overseen panels of administrators and faculty vetted for bias accomplishes the institutional redesign we’ve called for.
Yet others raise concerns—either because they are underdeveloped, contain loopholes, or risk unintended consequences. A detailed point-by-point analysis is available here, but we highlight three key areas:
First, mask policy. Despite headlines, there is no actual mask ban. The new policy simply reiterates that masked protestors must identify themselves when asked by University officials, which is already part of the Rules of University Conduct. The issue has never been the Rule itself, but the unwillingness to enforce it. We are unaware of any case where a masked protester was asked to identify themselves or remove their mask, refused, and was held accountable. To be clear, we oppose masks because they are used to intimidate, not just because they conceal identity. Contrast our policy with the University of California’s systemwide explicit ban on masks to “conceal [one’s] identity with the intent of intimidating any person or group, or for the purpose of evading or escaping discovery, recognition, or identification in the commission of violations of law or policy.”
Second, time, place, and manner (TPM) rules. Rather than put in place clear TPM rules (which were in place until the University Senate let them lapse), whether positive (“must register in advance to protest in place X at time Y”) or negative (“protests in place X at time Y do not require registration”), there is merely a statement that protests in academic buildings are “generally not acceptable” because of the “likelihood of disrupting academic activities.” By that logic, bullhorns at 3 AM outside of dormitories, encampments during football games, and blockading the entrance of John Jay Dining Hall are fine. We think this is inappropriate for an urban university with a compact physical footprint. Georgetown, for example, has a very clear “speakers corner” approach designating multiple “public squares” where no reservation is necessary.
Third, admissions reform. The actions seem to focus on ensuring compliance with nondiscrimination laws and SFFA vs. Harvard. While we too support those, we think Columbia’s schools should holistically re-evaluate their entire admissions approach themselves. This is not something the federal government can or should regulate, but we believe that it is within Columbia’s own interest to shift its admissions strategy towards attracting candidates who are bridge-builders and institution-builders who seek to strengthen the campus community versus those who seek to divide and destroy it. The legacy of 1968, which culminated in a Columbia student blowing himself up making nail bombs in a Greenwich Village townhouse, is not one we should celebrate or emulate.
The Long Road Ahead
While this past week may have broken a logjam, it did not solve Columbia’s deeper governance crisis. Announcing reforms is easy. Implementing them thoughtfully, equitably, and with fidelity to our institutional mission is the real challenge.
If implementation falters or enforcement is not seen as credible, we may find ourselves living with the worst of both worlds: alienated faculty, eroded governance structure, and no real gains in campus climate or institutional functionality. Therefore, we believe the next phase must prioritize faculty involvement, shaped by consultation and principled dialogue. Sustainable change requires legitimacy through process, not just outcomes. These reforms should reflect a commitment to academic integrity, not political pressure.
That perception, however, is not widespread. Many see this as symbolic surrender—sacrificing autonomy for little gain. No funding was restored, no legal requirement demanded the changes, making them seem more like political appeasement than principled reform.
We get it: change is slow and hard. Columbia is not, in the words of international relations scholars, a unitary actor. It is a complex constellation of 35,782 students, 7,375 faculty and researchers, 9,134 administrators, 3,359 staff, and over 400,000 alumni, each with their own beliefs, priorities, principles, and blind spots. Over the last seventeen months, dysfunction in that system has become increasingly visible. The current situation has opened a window to accelerate some long-overdue reforms. That window should not be wasted. But neither should it be mistaken for success.
What remains is a sobering responsibility: to restore the legitimacy of Columbia’s governance structures, to rebuild trust with and among the faculty, and to insist that institutional change be rooted in principle, not panic. The choices before us cannot be between inaction and surrender. The better way forward is neither passive nor performative, but participatory. And if our current shared governance forums have been captured by radicalism or fallen into dysfunction—as the AHFG and University Council did in 1968—then it is incumbent on the responsible senior faculty of this great institution to repair, restructure, or rebuild them, just as Michael Sovern did. If we fail to do so, we risk confirming the worst fears about who we are and what we stand for, and we won’t stand a chance in the upcoming “actual” negotiation.
Now is the moment for generosity, conviction, and leadership. There is still time to do this right. But we have no time to lose.
A Coda: Thank You Greg Wawro
We’ve often discussed what responsible faculty leadership looks like. Professor Gregory J. Wawro is a terrific example. A leading scholar of American political science, he has taught at Columbia for nearly 30 years, specializing in gridlocked political processes like the legislative filibuster.
Professor Wawro is not an administrator. He has a busy day job as a full-time faculty member who teaches, conducts research, and leads the M.S. in Political Analytics program, but he took on the demanding role of Rules Administrator last September—an unglamorous and thankless but critical position. Let us reiterate: nobody wants this job. Though he holds no disciplinary power, he and his team gathered extensive evidence and testimony for the University Judicial Board, working through a phalanx of hostile lawyers and intense internal and external pressure to help bring the Hamilton Hall disciplinary process to completion.
In return, he faced relentless harassment, coordinated email campaigns, and serious legal and physical threats. At its hour of anguish, Columbia needs its responsible faculty like Professor Wawro to provide leadership and legitimacy. Please consider sending him a note to express your appreciation for his service.
News Roundup
– March 23, 2025. The Hill reports that Education Secretary Linda McMahon said the Trump administration and Columbia University are “on the right track” toward restoring $400 million in frozen federal funding, following an antisemitism probe that led to the grant suspension. McMahon emphasized the university’s responsibility to ensure student safety and confirmed ongoing negotiations to unfreeze the funds after Columbia agreed to the administration’s demands.
– March 22, 2025. The Spectator reports on the incredible run of the women’s basketball team. An outright Ivy League championship. A first-ever NCAA tournament win in program history with a come-from-behind takedown of Washington. Finishing 24–7 and dominating Ivy League play, the Lions built on last year’s breakthrough with another strong campaign under head coach Megan Griffith CC ‘07. Seniors Kitty Henderson and Cecelia Collins leave behind a legacy of grit, growth, and program-defining success—Henderson departing as the winningest player in Columbia history. While their March Madness run ended in the First Round, the season marks another major step forward for a team that’s proven it belongs on the national stage.
– March 22, 2025. The NYT reports that in a move that’s rippling across higher education, Columbia University has indicated multiple policy changes in response to federal government pressure—marking what many see as a pivotal moment in the Trump administration’s aggressive push to reshape academia. We found the comment by Professor Brent Stockwell particularly enlightening: “There is no scenario in which Columbia can exist in any way in its current form if the government funding is completely withdrawn. Is having a dialogue a capitulation? I would say it is not… It is frustrating to me that people at other academic institutions who are not subject to these pressures are saying, ‘Columbia should fight the good fight.’ They are happy to give up our funding for their values.”
– March 22, 2025. Adjunct Professor Margaret Sullivan of the Journalism School writes in an op-ed in The Guardian, that Columbia should have sued the U.S. government and fought it out in court. Drawing from her own experience in newsroom leadership, Sullivan contends that powerful institutions must resist intimidation—even at financial risk—to defend principles like academic freedom and free expression. Sullivan urges universities and organizations with resources to stand firm, not just for their own credibility, but to protect those with fewer defenses—and because it’s simply the right thing to do. The Journalism receives few, if any, federal research grants (although it does receive Title IV student financial aid) and Professor Sullivan freely admits she has “never run a university.” We respect her principled stance, but we think this neatly illustrates the frustrating dynamic Professor Stockwell pointed out: “I am happy to forego your federal research funding in order to protect my values.”
– March 21, 2025. The Free Press published an op-ed by Harvard Law’s Felix Frankfurter Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz argues that while Mahmoud Khalil, a pro-Palestinian green card holder, may have a constitutional right to free speech, including speech that supports extremist views, his actions are morally indefensible. Drawing a comparison to the ACLU’s (on whose board Dershowitz served at the time) past defense of neo-Nazis in Skokie, Dershowitz highlights a perceived double standard in public and institutional reactions: while the Nazis’ speech was broadly condemned even as it was legally defended, Khalil has received widespread support and even praise despite allegedly distributing pro-Hamas material. Dershowitz insists that defending Khalil’s right to free speech should not be conflated with endorsing the content of his speech, especially if his immigration status was obtained fraudulently.
– March 21, 2025. The WSJ and NYT both published pieces this week on Columbia’s response to the Trump administration demands if the school wishes to continue receiving federal funding in the future, with a potential $400 million hanging in the balance. Columbia has indicated an “overhaul” of its existing protest policies, Middle Eastern studies department, and Public Safety capabilities. Additionally, the school has agreed to “adopt a formal definition of antisemitism,” which could formally include “targeting Jews or Israelis for violence or celebrating violence against them,” “certain double standards applied to Israel,” and more. As we have discussed in this issue, we think this framing is misleading.
– March 20, 2025. The NY Review published this week an op-ed written by a group of constitutional law scholars (both liberal and conservative) on the recent situation at Columbia. Overall, they disapprove. The main sentiment expressed is that the government is wrongfully leveraging threats of funding cuts to manipulate receiving schools into quashing speech that is protected by the First Amendment and curtailing academic freedom. They highlight the fact that the First Amendment exists for the very purpose of protecting speech that many find atrocious or hard to contend with, including “advocacy” against Israel, “even antisemitic advocacy.” They admit that there is a fine line between “legally unprotected harassment” and “protected speech.” However, they argue that even if Columbia was indeed sanctioning unprotected harassment, there were “procedural safeguards” that the Trump administration needed to clear before cancelling the $400 million on March 7 or before making more demands on March 13. For example, “no agency and no court has concluded that Columbia illegally failed to reasonably respond to such discriminatory behavior—much less failed to act at a level justifying withdrawal of nearly half a billion dollars in funds.” Therefore, they conclude, the government is in jeopardy of “suppressing constitutionally protected speech—not just illegal discriminatory conduct.”
– March 20, 2025. The NY Times reported that the University of California will no longer mandate diversity statements as part of their hiring practice. Many have felt these served as a political litmus test over the past decade (at least at the UC schools), filtering out those whose politics didn’t fit snugly in with the current social or political narrative. In reaction to this news, some have claimed the effect will be a more inclusive campus, while others worry about the opposite. A typical diversity statement would ask applicants to “describe in a page or so how they would contribute to campus diversity.” The chair of the school’s Board of Regents shared Wednesday, “Our values and commitment to our mission have not changed. We will continue to embrace and celebrate Californians from a variety of life experiences, backgrounds and points of view.”
– March 20, 2025. The Chronicle of Higher Education wrote an article this week proposing a system of checks and balances in academia, similar to the one we have in the government to balance power and create security. Their angle is that if schools do not insist on viewpoint diversity themselves, it will be dictated from the “outside”—in this case, the government. They suggest a system of checks and balances where there are four branches of power: trustees, high-level admins, faculty, and independent accrediting agencies and committees. They highlight that the administrations and faculties at most schools have already become wildly off-kilter politically, liberal-leaning faculty dominating most fields in recent decades. For example, they write, in the early 1900s, psychology as a field was balanced about 2:1 liberals to conservatives, whereas it has shifted to 17:1 over time.
– March 11, 2025. The Chronicle for Higher Education featured an interview with Columbia’s President Emeritus Lee Bollinger, a leading First Amendment scholar. President Emeritus Bollinger warns that American higher education is under siege amid what he calls an “authoritarian takeover” by the Trump administration. Bollinger criticizes universities contemplating “capitulation” to political pressure instead of defending their core values. He firmly believes that universities should “[seek] shelter in the courts”, i.e. sue the federal government.