The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Trump Administration and Columbia University
A threat to academic freedom
Yesterday the Trump administration launched yet another massive financial blow at a university because it has done some things the administration does not like. This time the University of Pennsylvania's medical research is being decimated because the administration disagrees with the Penn athletic department's transgender policies.
Today I have a piece out in The Dispatch focusing on the earlier actions regarding Columbia University. New reporting suggests Columbia will soon cave to the administration's demands. Not surprising given the stakes at issue, but it will be important to see the details of what Columbia actually agrees to do and how the administration actually responds to the win.
My piece is titled "Funding with Strings Attached Risks Strangling Academic Freedom." A bit overstated, as titles often are, but this action by the administration certainly poses such a threat. Both the administration's approach to handling funding cut-offs under the Civil Rights Act and the specific demands being made of Columbia pose extraordinary threat to a pluralistic society and universities as independent centers of scholarly activity and intellectual exchange. Columbia deserves the reputational blow that it is now suffering, but Columbia's bad actions do not justify the administration's own troubling behavior.
From the piece:
These actions by the administration do not comply with existing federal civil rights laws and severely impose on the independence of a private university to set its own policies regarding speech and scholarship. The administration has seized any weapon at hand—without much concern for the legality of how it is using that weapon—to try to bend a university to its will. In doing so, it goes far beyond attempting to remedy any particular civil rights violation. No, the White House wants to force Columbia to pursue its educational and scholarly mission differently. This is not something the government should demand of a private university.
You can read the whole thing here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I was already starting to wonder whether the conservative academic freedom crowd had been deported to El Salvador without anyone noticing, because it was nothing but crickets from that direction. Better late than never, I guess.
Agreed. Eugene's near-total silence on the issue is both notable and shameful.
A Statement From Constitutional Law Scholars On Columbia
There is a valid case that Title IX ought to be repealed and let the market determine the extent to which we have girl's sports.
But unless you are willing to repeal it, you have to enforce it equally when you don't like the outcome.
The conservative academic freedom crowd has never existed.
From the last sentence in the post -"This is not something the government should demand of a private university."
Nor should the government be funding a private university.
Sure. Who needs doctors anyway?
if you are going to comment - at least make an effort to comment with something germane to the post
I seriously doubt that the nation's supply of new doctors will suddenly dry up if the Federal Government stops funding private institutions training.
We had no doctors before the feds funded medical education None at all. This is a known fact.
There were certainly fewer.
Were there? Measure has to be per capita since population is larger.
Wrong, there were way more Med Screw-els and Docs in the 19th Century, then the "Flexner Report" came out, where some busybody went and inspected every Screw-el, and found that some didn't even require Screw-dents to dissect their own Cadavers (they were 200 years ahead of their time) ended up shutting down 90% of the Med Screw-els in the Country, resulting in the artificially low number of Docs (You know, only the "Best & Brightest get in to Med Screw-el, like Me)
Of course it's been mitigated by letting in every Kumar, Muamar, and Majombo from the blackest holes of Calcutta, and putting up a DO screw-el on every corner (Even Auburn's got one).
Frank
Most med school students have been paying full freight for years.
Actually not a stupid comment, we're taught early in Medical Screw-el that "Most things get better" (Right up there with "Common things are Common" "When you hear Hoofbeats look for Horses, not Zebras" and "Dys-Pareunia is better than No-Pareunia"
Last 20 years I've only gone to Sawbones for 1: Cataract 2: Rotator Cuff, 3: Colonoscopy, and 4: Annual Prostrate Massage
last 2 are only for 1: the drugs and 2: hot Urologist (Yes, she's a female, boy is she female)
Frank "Have you had this before? well you've got it again"
That just makes even more cynical the current hair-trigger "if just about anything doesn't look/feel/seem/normal in any way, make sure to get in right away and have The Professionals™ check it out!" The bimmers don't pay for themselves.
My GP is pretty damn hot. Too bad she always wears a mask now.
Yes. This idea that universities, liberal NGOs and the like are entitled to billions of taxpayer money with no strings attached so they can propagate evil, liberal goals, is a farce from the beginning.
Ya, fairness, due proceeds, diversity, inclusion, equity, non-discrimination. Very telling that MAGAs see those as evil.
Diversity, inclusion, and equity are the opposite of non-discrimination.
And what the fuck are due proceeds?
Yet another who conflates DEI with affirmative action.
Inclusion, diversity and non-discrimination is anti-white male
If Columbia sued, what grounds would it have? Could it suffer collateral consequences, e.g. withholding even more funding, in retaliation?
For Penn, is there any requirement that rules have some connection to the actual funds and the purposes for which they are used? Given that there have been court rulings (correct or not) holding that what Penn did is required by the Civil Rights laws, it seems rather a stretch to suddenly claim it is forbidden by them without going through any rule-making or warning process.
R_Y,
For the $400, I assume that Columbia would sue for breach of contract or implied contract. All that would depend on the conditions and certification of the contract.
I find it hard to believe that there are not any judicable matters.
I am certain that if we had people in white hoods marching saying similar things about Black people, harassing students, shutting off access to classes, that the author would be just as adamant that the government keep sending money to such private institutions.
Hypothetical hypocrisy is always easy to prove.
I don't know why he bothers with appeals to hypocrisy. Its not like you people have any integrity or principles.
What an easy fix this is.
14.8 BILLION dollar endowment.
Columbia, and others, shouldn't get a dime of tax payer money.
No strings attached, then.
And they can continue to devolve into islamo-terrorist loving clown schools.
You're welcome.
Surely, Professor Whittington can agree that a $14.8B endowment enables whatever free speech Columbia can muster without the need for taxpayer largesse.
The size of Columbia's (or Penn's or Harvard's) is irrelevant.
I disagree. "I stole a loaf of bread to feed my starving children" is different from "I stole the loaf because it was there". The size of the endowment takes away the argument that 'living without government largess is impossible for us'. Clearly it is possible since far smaller institutions have done it. That turns the question from 'why is the government being so mean' to 'if you believe so strongly, why did you accept the money that you knew came with strings attached?'
Rossami,
You are highly confused about the meaning of endowment and the meaning annual contractual income. They are independent of each other, completely.
Your bread stealing analogy is completely off point. Whether you stole the bread from a mansion or a hut is irrelevant. The fact is that you STOLE it.
No, they are not independent, not when the question was "could you afford X".
And you're missing the point of the analogy. It's not who you stole from, it's why you stole it. Generally, feeling forced into doing X because poverty is viewed more favorably than doing X when you could easily afford Y instead. Having huge endowments and/or sizable incomes takes away the 'poverty' excuse.
Only in your mind are they dependent. The IRS does not see the dependence.
I did not miss your point. But you revealed it loud and clear now. You are just envious of the wealth of others.
Poverty may be an excuse for you. If so, think kindly of the thief in ragged clothes who breaks into your house.
And, no, I did not go to Harvard.
That's not what I said and I'm pretty sure you know it. Strawman arguments do not become you.
If you're sucking off the teat of Uncle Sugar, be prepared to do what Uncle Sugar asks.
Keith Whittington appears to be a founding member of Libertarians for Marxist thuggery.
Fortunately, I don’t think Professor Whittington’s reputation is at risk of the opinions of two absolute know-nothing donkeys.
I am so tired of the hyperbolic intellectual dishonesty from intellectuals.
Trump isn't trying to bend Columbia or Penn to his will. DEI is almost always bad and especially in academia. Yes, banning the teaching of DEI is a step too far. The action does infringe on academic freedom. I get it--slippery slope, slippery slope. Next he will ban the teaching of evolution and require teaching that slavery wasn't so bad.
It is not a step too far to withhold funding for practicing DEI. They do not have the academic freedom to discriminate based on immutable characteristics (oops, gender is no longer immutable).
The Trump admin is required, by law, to enforce Title IX. If you think Title IX was meant to protect equality for women and men who think they are women, you can take that up with the populace. He said he was going to do this.
The Trump admin is required, by law, to enforce Title IX.
So what? He's required to do lots of things that he's definitely not doing.
He said he was going to do this.
So what? He says lots of things. Sometimes he says things that are mutually inconsistent in the same sentence.
>So what? He's required to do lots of things that he's definitely not doing.
Well looky here, we found a law that martinned2 doesn't want enforced. Such strong principles, Martinned2! Rule of Law and all that...
Martinned is dumb European trash, you're best off just muting him.
I've met his type. Usually from a place like Denmark or Belgium, whose idea of a nice society is living in a cramped two bedroom apartment and walking to coffee shops.
So what if he follows the law?
Jeez, if you admit he is following the law, and if you think he is not following the law, Trump will get criticized either way.
So what if he does what he is saying?
If you admit he does what he says, and you think he says contradictory things, Trump will get criticized either way.
Did I mention intellectual dishonesty?
No, he definitely gets criticised more if he doesn't follow the law. But if he does, his decisions might still be bad, or otherwise worth criticising. Not everything that's legal is a good idea.
Satchmo_Lives believes women are genetically predisposed to not to STEM and instead do bad angry social science and should therefore not be educated.
where did he say that
I said the first part about females throughout the animal kingdom are caretakers. The 40 year push to get more women in college (in 2021 women made up 59.5% of college students) has resulted in an explosion of social science programs and a dearth of STEM graduates.
The last part about me wanting women uneducated is just a delusion of his. You really can't point out facts without these guys losing their minds.
You said that women in universities tend towards taking bad feminist-studies type courses and becoming bad leftist shrews.
I did extrapolate to therefore don't let them into school.
Yep. My proof is women overwhelmingly choose social sciences over STEM. Shoot me, I believe in biological differences. I link it to the animal world where the females do the rearing of offspring. Even in communal environments like chimps, our closest relative, the male has little to do with his offspring even though they cohabitate.
At least you started out stating my position correctly. The part about me not wanting women to be educated is just your fantasy. Why you have such fantasies is beyond my comprehension.
I explained to you that assuming choices are free and internally-driven is stupid.
You seem really committed to your thesis, though.
Oh yeah, now I remember. You wanted to poll STEM women to ask about their feels instead of asking non-STEM women why they chose a different field. Then you want to ascribe the feels to the non-STEM women. Logic at its finest.
I said social science is bullshit. I didn't say other degrees that women might choose instead of social sciences are bullshit.
You extrapolated incorrectly. Not surprising considering your method of determining why women don't choose STEM.
I explained to you basic social science protocols, including baselining.
You didn't want to hear it.
Because you have Biotruths you didn't reason yourself into, but are very sure about.
---
You say the following:
1. Women in choose social science more than any other field
2. Social science is bullshit.
Are you so wallowing in sexist spite you don't see where you're going with this?
3. Education is not bullshit and neither is English, or other language arts. Or the fine arts for that matter.
Which are other degrees women choose. Are you so wallowing in stupidity based inference you believe I mean the above are bullshit even though I never stated they were?
I'm sure those in the education, English, and fine arts departments are pleased to receive your imprimatur.
I'm also pleased to see you backtracking from your women as home-bound nurturers biotruth position from when last we talked.
Maybe when you said they all end up shrewish feminist studies majors, you just neglected to mention sculpture was cool though.
I prefer to think of it as you mellowing in your old age.
Never said women should be home bound. Another fantasy of yours of which I have no comprehension.
You understanding part of my position instead of simply ascribing my positions according to your biases has nothing to do with my age. Seriously, how hopeless are you are you?
You talked a lot about female animals being nurturers...where were you going with that?
Are you trying to tell me that women are not female animals and therefore do not follow the 99.9% of other females of the mammalian class that are nurturers?
What the fuck are you, a creationist? 200 million years of evolution of mammals is just a figment of my imagination and humans who share 98% of their DNA with chimps doesn't include nurturing.
You.
Fucking.
Moron.
> (oops, gender is no longer immutable).
Nice catch. I bet the Democrats haven't even realized this whole transgender nonsense completely undercuts 50 years of their dogma. "They're just born that way". Obviously not, the data say they are being groomed.
There is a wonderful interview from a fairly impressive 15 yr old trans. But yeah, his mom told him in the 2nd grade he could be a girl if he wanted to because he liked to play with Barbies.
https://youtu.be/DCU4ULxjwBQ?si=1JCTiqtwMCmqIg5U
Compared to debt peonage, slavery wasn't so bad.
DEI is non-discrimination. Those who oppose DEI are bigots. Remember this is the same administration who recently lifted the ban on government contractors having racially segregated facilities.
"DEI is non-discrimination. "
No, DEI is discrimination.
DEI is active intentional discrimination
More sky screaming from the left. It was one part of an overarching rollback of duplicative regulations. It is still illegal to discriminate and any employer who tries to segregate water fountains and bathrooms will be dealt with rather quickly. As if any would even try considering the civil liabilities.
Unless you really think this regulation is the only thing stopping employers from segregating their workplace, grow up. Do you really think there are employers out their thinking "oh look, we can now segregate our offices?"
And the PATRIOT Act protected patriots, right?
I'm not as hard core as MollyGodiva, but the people here are just acting like DEI is affirmative action.
And even then coming in ignoring the legal lay of the land about what constituted discrimination until quite recently.
I personally don't trust a guy on DEI who believes it necessary to ask the feelings of Group B to determine how/why group A makes choices. But hey, you do you.
D Diversity of what? Eye color? Not sure it has anything to do with their talent, but alright if you say so.
E Equity. OK. The state or quality of being just and fair. Not sure how equity squares with picking people based on eye color though.
I Inclusion. Meaningless by itself. No matter what your endeavor there will billions of people not included. Unless you mean you
mustshould include people with different eye colors. Doesn't seem fair to exclude one person with brown eyes because youneedshould have a person with blue eyes. Again, not sure how that squares with equity.You've said this before. You're as wrong now as you were every previous time. DEI might have been initially intended by a small few as 'non-discrimination' but it was quickly co-opted (with no noted objections) into active reverse discrimination and class warfare.
The DEI programs expert has logged on.
Rossami has provided a reasonably accurate statement of how DEI has been implemented and its actual effect.
Oh shit, now Joe backed him up!
Unassailable double ipse dixit!!
Funny how you never call out Molly for her equally unsupported claims.
Yes. I am a liberal and don't like to call out my own.
It takes like calling Justice Thomas an uncle Tom for me to take someone on my side to task.
Not many on here police their own. Not like I see you doing so either.
It's thankless work and no fun. And in the end we're here to have a good time.
So you're intentionally trolling instead of trying to have a serious conversation. Got it. Just know that your definition of "a good time" is not mine. I'm actually here to try to learn things.
The Trump admin is required, by law, to enforce Title IX.
The statement Eugene Volokh et. al. signed explained the rules of enforcement & how the Administration is not following them.
The Columbia case comes under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The Penn case comes under Title IX of the Education Amendments. The former involves speech. The latter involves conduct.
Whether the Trump's interpretation of Title IX (trans women are categorically excluded from women's sports) is upheld by the courts remains to be seen. But if it is, then funding to universities in violation can be withheld. On the other hand, Trump threatened Maine with withholding all federal funding to the state because it permits schools to include trans women in women's sports. That would likely violate the unconstitutional conditions doctrine.
Correction. Withholding money from Maine would not be authorized by Congress.
From the statement:
In part because of that, any sanctions imposed on universities for Title VI violations must follow that statute’s well-established procedural rules, which help make clear what speech is sanctionable and what speech is constitutionally protected.
Yet the administration’s March 7 cancellation of $400 million in federal funding to Columbia University did not adhere to such procedural safeguards. Neither did its March 13 ultimatum stipulating that Columbia make numerous changes to its academic policies—including the demand that, within one week, it “provide a full plan” to place an entire “department under academic receivership for a minimum of five years”—as “a precondition for formal negotiations regarding Columbia University’s continued financial relationship with the United States government.”
etc.
https://www.dorfonlaw.org/2025/03/wait-can-he-actually-do-that-parts-9-10.html
Among those who signed:
"Keith Whittington, David Boies Professor of Law, Yale Law School"
That's the Columbia case, not the Penn case.
Memo to Whittington: Federal money comes with federal strings attached. If you don't want the strings, then don't take the money.
Penn Med School is decimated? What a crock of s**t. Penn has a multi-BILLION dollar endowment, and state funding from PA. Decimated....LMAO. Hyperbole much?
This overwrought post is precisely why people tune you out.
Memo to XY:
That doesn't mean Trump can cut off the funding if he feels like it.
Contrary to your belief, he is not all-powerful.
He is, however, a certifiable idiot and a nasty, spiteful, human being. Does it occur to him, or you, that:
1. The medical research at Columbia has considerable value.
2. That he is punishing lots of people who have no control over Columbia's athletic policies for no reason other than to show off.
3. That he is the world's biggest asshole, and his cultists are not far behind?
1. Like funding the useless COVID vaccines? Or doing research that states that it's healthy to sodomize another man?
2. Like Biden did when he ignored North Carolina after the storms?
3. No, the world's biggest asshole would be Chuck Schumer.
You know damn well you want research that states that it's healthy to sodomize another man. It will give you cover for what you do anyhow.
Columbia and UPenn did this to themselves with their intransigence and venality in their failure to address antisemitism. Their endowments run into the billions.
I am unsympathetic to the problems they made for themselves.
Deal with the antisemitism, and toss the foreign students who are hamas homies and hamas harpies. Then come back.
And the people who are good with their actions can go f themselves.
I'll read anything you'd like to share on the details, but I highly doubt that anything that has actual demonstrable value isn't being copiously funded by the private sector, and intangible measures of "value" are often in the eye of the beholder.
I highly doubt that anything that has actual demonstrable value isn't being copiously funded by the private sector,
You're wrong. The private sector is interested in profits, not societal wellbeing. ROI is not the only metric for evaluating research.
It has both private and social benefits. Privately funded research only captures the private benefits. But the social benefits over and above that may be large.
That's why a lot of private research builds off work done on government grants, which work is too risky for private firms to invest in. Your argument is juvenile libertarianism.
Of course there are strings attached…but only those attached at the time of the grant, not any that the administration chooses to attach ex post.
It's pathetic watching universities awash in cash pleading poverty because their access to my tax dollars has been cut off. Seize the fucking endowments already.
Research grants are not charity.
Charity is the act of giving and sharing resources to people who are in need. Research grants, on the other hand, are...
Research grants are an investment in knowledge.
Before Trump the US was the leading generator of research results in the world, one of our greatest assets. But Trump, cheered on by a bunch of ignoramuses, is hard at work destroying that.
You people are insane.
Most research that comes out of left wing universities is destructive to Western society. Cut off all research other than economics and science.
We can invest elsewhere, and get the knowledge without terrorizing Jewish students.
Yeah, XY.
Let's invest in research some place where there aren't so many scientists. Good plan.
"Before Trump the US was the leading generator of research results in the world, one of our greatest assets."
Lol, lmao even. Want to know how I know you haven't been in a graduate school lately?
Research grants are funding for universities to do research.
They are chosen via competitive processes, so only the most promising proposals are funded among the schools who apply.
I hope this helps.
Really -
is this why this lady got funded
https://www.campusreform.org/article/pro-hamas-columbia-prof-linked-millions-nih-funding/27688
It would seem she's a good researcher. From your linked article:
"h]er research has been funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Alzheimer’s Association, and she has authored over 220 peer-reviewed publications and 10 chapters"
You want blind peer-based merit reviews, and then you're mad when that's what you get.
I know. The process that awarded a grant to study why chimps fling poo was exhaustingly rigorous.
Tell us more about the Biotruths(tm) you've figured out about women without any federal money needed at all.
I will grant you can find a study authored by a doctoral candidate in feminist studies that says women don't CHOOSE STEM because of sexism. It will have the same methodology as you pulling your toys out of your ass--predetermined joy at the conclusion. It will be filed right along with the dissertation on how competitive eating is also sexist (if you have access to LexisNexus look it up). Yep, no difference between men and women and the only reason women can't compete with men in competitive eating is sexism.
The biggest reason women choose non-STEM is not because they prefer other courses, it is because of sexism. She really, really wanted to be a theoretical physicist but she chose feminist studies because a high school teacher said mean things.
You mean "Research grants are funding for scientists to do research."
These schools get grants because they already have the money to attract scientists. If the feds cap grants, scientists will go to other schools and get the research done.
The grants go to the schools.
If you want to argue we should have more support for research infrastructure at schools outside of the top research institutions, I am 100% on board. I think that would be a high-value investment in the future.
But I know you actually want to defund all higher education and tax their endowments, and this argument is made in bad faith.
Agree with most of your comments on this issue, but, in point of fact, a large number of these grants go to the specific scholars performing the research.
I don't want to tax the endowments, I want to seize the endowments.
Before commenting on these administration attacks on universities, folks ought to go back and find the pre-election video clip of Vance summarizing right-wing advocacy to . . . attack universities. As enemies of America. Suitable only to be torn down.
It is a mistake to engage this kind of fascistic attack on private civil institutions. The ostensible cover stories used to justify the attacks have nothing to do with the political objectives the attacks are intended to advance. That's why you see no consistency in the cover themes used from one university to the next. The aim is political—to weaken or cripple private civil institutions with capacity to resist fascism.
Condemn that. Do not engage with distractions. Instead, insist on giant-scale organization to mobilize whatever resources remain capable to resist attacks on a republican form of government. Be the organizers.
True.
Ahh, yes, specific demands being made of Columbia pose an extraordinary threat to the pluralistic society where antisemitic Hamas supporters get to harass and blockade Jewish students.
Money always comes with strings. Dont like the strings, don't take the money.
Maybe the medical faculty should step up and tell the university leadership to get their shit together.
Bob Jones Univ. v. United States, 461 U.S. 574, 604 (1983)
Strict scrutiny also requires that the method be narrowly tailored and be the least restrictive means.
While eradicating racial discrimination is a compelling interest, I don't think the other requirements are satisfied in today's cases. The government has a compelling interest not in enforcing a particular view of the Equal Protection Clause - that everything has to be colorblind - against those originally not subject to it, but in eliminating racial discrimination in general, which reasonable minds have disagreed on its meaning. In comparison, in Bob Jones, there was no question that banning interracial couples was racially discriminatory under any definition.
Exactly. We are talking overt discrimination against Jews. Imagine the uproar if we replaced Jews with Blacks there. Everything else is there to distract from this compelling government interest.
Bob Jones was denied tax exemption over their racially discriminatory conduct. Columbia is being targeted for what they teach (i.e., speech).
Columbia is also being targeted for what they did (or more properly, what they failed to do).
"Funding with Strings Attached Risks Strangling Academic Freedom."
And yet the piece doesn't call for the repeal of laws attaching strings to federal funds?
The left has been using federal funds to dictate university policies for years.
Enabling and facilitating terroristic threats against students sounds like a threat too.
And I doubt that the universities policies are in any way content neutral: What would happen if suddenly Magen David (Stars of David) started getting spray painted around campus?
"This time the University of Pennsylvania's medical research is being decimated because the administration disagrees with the Penn athletic department's transgender policies."
What does this have to do with academic freedom? It's one thing to deny federal grand funding to universities who teach ideas the government doesn't like; it's another to deny grant funding to universities that don't have women's sports.
When you take the king's shilling ...
Free yourself, reject federal funding. You will still have to obey non-discrimination last but you will remove leverage.
I won't hold my breath.
Edit doesn't work for me. "last" should be "laws"
Combating antisemitism is being used as a cover for authoritarian revenge, coercion, and just attacks on out university system.
These punishments in no way fit the cited issue.
Hard to get worked up over academic freedom after I've seen what universities have used it for.
Freedom, but only if you do what TwomblyMan likes!
I think the title "Funding with Strings Attached Risks Strangling Academic Freedom" is apt and not at all an overstatement. And that title highlights the weakness of the article's own complaints. If you don't want the strings, don't accept the funding.
Same with highway funding.
In a system with a modern functional government, your proposed policy permits a level of federal control I don't think many actually want.
Look at the current law on conditions on federal funding.
The answer is to stop the federal funding, not to make federal spending utterly unaccountable.
The federal law and precedents on allowable vs unallowed conditions are inconsistent and, in my opinion, incoherent. They do not resolve this question the way you seem to be assuming.
because the administration disagrees with the Penn athletic department's transgender policies
Considering the last administration's contradictory stance I think the school is entitled to a warning shot before being cut off from funding.
Not only that, but law requires such warning shot.