The interim president of Columbia was forced out last night from her position, it appears as a demand of the “Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism”, see here. This indicates that the trustees continue to believe that they have to do whatever they are told, including firing the university president and replacing her with someone more compliant.
A commenter here pointed to a Wall Street Journal article from a while back which explains where the demands being made by the Trump administration are coming from: Columbia’s own faculty:
Last month, seven faculty members and the co-founder of the school’s Jewish alumni association went to the interim president, Katrina Armstrong, with nearly the same requests as the Trump administration.
They called on Columbia to fight discrimination and encourage inclusivity. They asked the president to ban masks, adopt a stricter definition of what constitutes antisemitism, and discipline members of the Middle East, South Asian and African Studies department. Most of the recommendations haven’t been acted on.
“I was shocked when I saw” the Trump administration letter, said Larisa Geskin, a professor in the medical school and an author of a faculty letter to the interim president. “I was like, ‘Am I reading my letter?’ This is what I was talking about.”
Geskin, a cancer researcher, is critical of university leadership. “When there is a war, somebody has to make a decision, and decisions are not being made, at least that we can see,” Geskin said.
We’ve been told over the past week that the trustees are not going to court, but agreeing to all demands because they believe that if they don’t do so, the university will lose not just the \$400 million, but also all Federal grants (in the billions), as well as Pell Grants and other student loans, and visas for its foreign students. Their belief is that the Trump administration has the power to effectively destroy the university if they don’t cave-in to everything (or even if they try and go to court).
The demands being made clearly are not coming from Trump, it appears that they are coming from this group of seven Columbia faculty members. Geskin and the six others who are behind this need to immediately call off the attack on their university, or take responsibility and make clear publicly that they are willing to destroy the university if they don’t get what they want.
Update: The bogus “antisemitism” attack has been such a success at damaging Columbia and giving Trump’s people control of the institution that they’re now moving on to doing the same thing to Harvard. Hopefully the trustees at Harvard have more willingness to stand up for principle and go to court to fight Fascism than the ones at Columbia.
Update: For a detailed discussion of the events at Columbia I’ve been covering, see this blog posting from Columbia Law Professor David Pozen.
Update: I’ve tracked down the story of the group that met with Armstrong and presented her a list of demands similar to the Trump task force demands. Evidently there was a meeting on Jan. 17 where a group of 9 people (medical school, law school, business school, engineering, alumni, no arts and sciences) presented Armstrong a list of demands. This group then circulated a letter for signatures, got about 200 signatures. The letter published Feb. 3 is here, coverage in the Spectator is here.
The WSJ referred in March to a meeting the month before, so there presumably was another meeting in February with Armstrong of much the same group of people. The March 13 letter from the Trump task force has many similarities (and some differences) with that Feb. 3 letter.
So, when Armstrong got the March 13 demands, this was presumably just the latest in a back and forth of demands, which started with the internal Columbia group and later became demands from the government. This goes a long way to explaining why the university caved-in to the demands from the outside: for a while they had been dealing with similar demands from a large group inside the university. It seems possible that some of the trustees supported these demands, explaining why the trustees decided not to go to court to challenge the version of the demands coming from outside.
Update: The University Senate has published a 335 page report on the events at Columbia from Oct.7, 2023 to the end of 2024. It contains an exhaustive description of what exactly happened here during that period.
Update: Worth following is political scientist Adam Przeworski’s ongoing diary of our descent into Fascism. From his March 25 entry:
Here is an excerpt from Adventures of a Bystander, by Peter Drucker, without a comment because it speaks for itself:
“[S]everal weeks after the Nazis had come to power, was the first Nazi-led faculty meeting at the University. Frankfurt was the first university the Nazis tackled, precisely because it was the most self-confidently liberal of major German universities, with a faculty that prided itself on its allegiance to scholarship, freedom of conscience, and democracy. The Nazis knew that control of Frankfurt University would mean control of German academia altogether. So did everyone at the University. Above all, Frankfurt had a science faculty distinguished both by its scholarship and by its liberal convictions; and outstanding among the Frankfurt scientists was a biochemist of Nobel Prize caliber and impeccable liberal credentials. When the appointment of a Nazi commissar for Frankfurt was announced around February 25 of that year and when not only every teacher but also every graduate assistant at the University was summoned to a faculty meeting to hear his new master, everybody knew that a trial of strength was at hand. … The new Nazi commissar wasted no time on the amenities…. [He] pointed his finger at one department chairman after another and said: ‘You either do what I tell you or we’ll put you into a concentration camp.’ There was dead silence when he finished; everybody waited for the distinguished biochemist. The great liberal got up, cleared his throat, and said: ‘Very interesting, Mr. Commissar, and in some respects very illuminating. But one point I didn’t get too clearly. Will there be more money for research in physiology?’ The meeting broke up shortly thereafter with the commissar assuring the scholars that indeed there would be plenty of money for ‘racially pure science’.”
I think the reason why the grants that have been targeted are in the medical field is because this administration views the medical establishment as its political opponent.
The NIH overhead cuts seem to have been directed by Mr. Musk. Mr. Musk has been upset at the medical establishment over transgender issues (due to events in his personal life) and Covid restrictions. The administration also blames NIH and the broader public health apparatus for covid related issues which they believe contributed to their defeat in 2020.
Unfortunately, the behavior of certain scientists to not publish scientific results that went against political correctness (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/23/science/puberty-blockers-olson-kennedy.html) and the duplicitous behavior of scientists claiming that Covid could not possibly be a lab leak despite their own belief to the contrary at the time of writing such papers (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/16/opinion/covid-pandemic-lab-leak.html) broadly undermines the credibility of science in the public eye. These papers were encouraged by Collins and Fauci. The American Medical Association went on to condemn Trump supporters for attending Sturgis rallies while claiming that BLM protests were ok since the police were apparently a bigger problem for black communities than Covid. The latter claim is an unconscionable lie.
Why should the average Joe believe that academia is self correcting? Indeed, string theory is spectacular evidence to the contrary – you have yourself documented the fact that people like Brian Greene actively promote garbage in public forums (I believe the infamous wormhole at some science festival) and the rest of us do not actively fight any of it. Other than Sabine and you, nobody else even discusses this topic in public even though respect for string theory is at an all time low.
This is really the core of the issue – the loss of respect for academia is measurable. Without the people on your side, it is hard for the universities to find many defenders. Even if the anti-semitism issues are massively overblown, could any of these institutions survive a prolonged examination of their admission and hiring policies over the past few years? It is little wonder that they lack the spine to fight – the spine was lost years ago.
Presumably, since you disallow comments from people not “on-the-ground” at Columbia from commenting on the supposition that they don’t actually know what is happening you will also refrain from commenting on what is happening “on-the-ground” at Harvard.
Are you here to tell us that no antisemitism warranting a federal response has happened at Harvard even though you are not on the ground? Or is this one you feel capable of judging at a distance unlike Scott viz a viz Columbia?
Attendee:
I suspect the NIH has been singled mostly because it presents such a big target. The NIH budget is significantly larger than NSF, the dependency of universities on NIH funding is significantly greater. If your goal is to inflict pain on the academy, it’s an obvious lever to pull.
I do agree that residual anger of the various blunders in response to covid (and the unfortunately arrogant attitude of some public spokespeople) is also a contributor.
Adam Treat,
I very much look forward to not doing any blogging here about the details of accusations of antisemitism at Harvard.
I don’t have much to add, but I’d like to say thank you, Peter, for standing up against Scott Aaronson’s dangerous arguments. It’s disturbing that someone of Scott’s intelligence has adopted such a cult-like position. Given his influence as a researcher, his disconnection from reality deserves pushback.
His views could impact important decision-making, and I’m glad you’re challenging his outrageous rants
Peter,
As you know, I was the victim of a horrific cancellation incident at Columbia. The other students were horrible to me. They tried to ruin my life, and succeeded in making me miserable for years. The worst people I’ve ever met in my life were some fellow students at Columbia. The most miserable and lonely period in my life was at Columbia. I hated my roomates, I hated many of my fellow students. They were cruel to me. Many of them were censorious, nasty, judgemental and uptight people, who would snitch on you for something as simple as an off-color joke or trying to flirt with a girl at a party.
Basically, I hate Columbia.
I’m also a hardcore Trump supporter and a right-winger.
With all that said…EVEN I am fundamentally opposed to what the Trump administration is doing at Columbia.
I’m a free speech absolutist, and I’m a firm believer that you should be able to say stupid and offensive shit at college without disciplinary consequences—certainly without being flown to a prison camp in Louisiana or deported. Even as a “fanatical right-winger,” I am opposed to any criminalization of speech. Most (or many) Trump supporters are.
I admit that in moments of Schadenfreude I’m excited that the same students who tormented me are themselves being tormented by the Trump administration. I also find a terrible unfairness in groups like CUAD supporting October 7 while the same students tormented me for much more innocuous comments.
At the same time, my principles tell me that Columbia students should be allowed to yell “Fuck yeah, Hamas!” us much as they can yell “Hell yeah, Putin!” or “I love the KKK!”
One problem with criminalizing speech is the vagueness of enforcement. How do you distinguish between antisemitic speech and criticizing the Israeli government or the way it conducts this war? Indeed, the Trump executive orders make it clear that “pathologically criticizing Israeli defense” is antisemitism. What does that even mean? Does saying “the IDF shouldn’t bomb apartment buildings to kill one or two low-level Hamas officials” count as “pathologically criticizing Israeli defense?” Who knows? This is one problem with censorship, that there’s no clear boundaries in what you censor, what counts as “anti-semitism” or “racism” is in the eye of the beholder.
Same issue with acknowledging the accomplishments of Western European civilizations being “racist,” or acknowledging statistical differences between men and women being “sexist.”
At university, all these viewpoints should be allowed. Students should have the freedom to debate whatever positions they want—as extreme as “send the blacks back to Africa” or “end Israel.” Fuck people telling me what I can and can’t say. I hate people telling me what to do. It does need to be fair. University shouldn’t selectively punish some “extreme” viewpoints. University and government should stay out of the speech-policing business entirely.
Peter, I am sure there would be many places around the world that would welcome you, why stay where you are not wanted?
JC,
My problem at the moment with Columbia and the US is not that I’m not wanted, but that while I used to be unreservedly happy to be here, I have much more mixed feelings about working in the current environment.
It’s really not pleasant to multiple times/day have to go through highly unnecessary security checkpoints, this has been going on now for a year. The campus is beautiful and very peaceful, which is nice, as long as you don’t think much about the reasons why it is so quiet. Mahmoud Khalil is not leading demonstrations marching around the campus because he’s locked up in a hole in Louisiana.
I can’t stop myself from thinking about what happened in 1933 in Germany. If you don’t know this history, you really should read about it. The analogies with what’s going on now are remarkable. Our only hope is that this historical repetition is of the sort Marx described by “the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.” At German universities by later in 1933 things were probably quieter since various sorts of people were all of a sudden missing.
Seeing what’s happening here, one understands clearly that Fascism takes over an institution partly with the help of those who are in it. Most are too fearful or indifferent to say anything, and there’s a bunch of people around who see the Fascists as a useful tool to get what they always wanted and punish their enemies.
While I’m pretty disgusted with the trustees, some of the rest of the leadership, and the Fascist collaborators, these are not people I actually deal with (of the trustees, I’ve met exactly one of them, had interesting conversations with him twice, seems like a great guy). The people I interact with daily are the students, staff and faculty of the math department, and this is almost always a great pleasure.
So, should I leave the university? Given the larger picture of what’s happening in this country, I’ve certainly been thinking about moving elsewhere someday. One reason not to leave NYC for long at the current time is that I have a 94 year old mother here.
I am starting to make plans for the next academic year, which include not teaching and being able to leave here for at least short periods fairly often. Doing some traveling out of the US seems very desirable. We’ll see, right now it’s hard to guess what will happen next week.
Can we stop taking the opinion of intelligent people like Scott Aaronson seriously because they are intelligent in their area of expertise? It is possible to be highly intelligent, and yet lack a healthy moral imagination. Scott Aaronson’s rant is compatible with the hypothesis that his moral imagination is nothing to be proud of. It clearly demonstrates his conviction, but what he does not seem to realize is that nurturing a conviction is rarely convincing to others, no matter how feverishly the conviction is formulated. In addition, intelligence is not easily transferable, a fact that many people (myself included at times) do not realize. Just because someone is highly intelligent in a particular field does not mean that this person is intelligent when it comes to the war in Gaza or the situation at Columbia.
To be fair, the foregoing, I suspect, applies equally to the more extremist protesters at Columbia.
Peter as a resident of Germany I am very familiar with the particular history but when folk like Timothy Snyder are leaving it must make you question your own future though can see that family issues would be a concern. Anyway I wish you luck and hope you will remain a voice of reason both in Physics (have been reading this blog for years even if some of the stuff is well over my head, Astrophysics degree 40 odd years ago) and also (sadly) in University politics. You would be very welcome on this side of the Atlantic.
JC,
Probably in 1933 people were doing the same kinds of calculations (well, it’s only the Communists they’re sending to Dachau, and I’m not a Communist) that people are doing now (it’s only the pro-Palestinian non-citizens they’re taking away to Louisiana, so I’m fine). Unfortunately we’re quickly moving from “it can’t happen here” to a realization that it could happen here. At the present moment I think people like me are far from any danger, but this could start changing and I’ll be getting ready to leave for Europe then.
I think everyone is hoping this descent into full-blown Fascism will stop soon. I’m finding it very hard to accept that institutions like Columbia are not doing everything they can to fight this descent and try to stop it and getting really impolite with those who are making things worse.
The list of demands of the Feb 3 letter signers sent is, in a couple of ways, even worse than the Trump one….I wonder if these people even know that the person who helped draft the IHRA definition of antisemitism thinks it should not be used for universities.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/persons-of-interest/the-problem-with-defining-antisemitism
I was going to ask if there are demonstrations going on at Columbia now, in response to what the Trump gang is doing. But then I read this:
“Jewish Columbia University students had chained themselves to a fence on campus for 45 minutes on Wednesday [April 2nd], in protest of the school’s cooperation with immigration agents to arrest a leader of last year’s pro-Palestinian encampment, when New York City Police officers arrived to break up the nonviolent action.”
[…]
“A Barnard College student identified as Tali said Wednesday that “as Jewish students, we grew up learning about the rise of fascism, learning about how important it is to stand up when you see injustice in the world.””
https://www.commondreams.org/news/columbia-student-protests
I’d expect large protests against the (potential) defunding of Columbia, but maybe most students are scared or don’t care enough? We’re having protests here at UC Riverside.
Sorry, I ran out of time to edit my last comment. I don’t mean we’re having protests about Columbia here at UC Riverside. I meant we’re having protests about how “the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress are attempting to eliminate billions of dollars in critical federal research funding to advance their extreme agenda and to finance tax breaks for the wealthy.”
John Baez,
I saw the protests today, the first on the way back from lunch, the second leaving the math building in the evening. When I left the one in the evening, a small group of students had “chained” themselves to the ironwork on the boundary of campus next to the math building, but the “chain” was just some thin red cabling. They had made a big sign “Accountability”. Evidently there was a news article saying possibly a trustee was involved in identifying Khalil as someone to be deported. The students were demanding that the trustee be identified. An extremely reasonable demand: the trustees should investigate and either assure the community none of them were involved, or identify who was (and remove them as a trustee).
There has been little to no protest about this. People first of all are not sure who to protest against about the grant cancellation: the fascist dictator? those collaborating with him to get their way about “antisemitism”? The trustees for caving in? For refusing to go to court and fight? No one really knows what is going on: did Armstrong resign on her own or was she fired? If the trustees fired her, why? At the demand of Trump’s people? Something else?
On the Khalil imprisonment, Trump’s people are clearly to blame, but the role of the university is unclear. As far as I know, the university has made no statement at all about this, decided to act as if this was not their problem, no reason they should say anything about it or help Khalil in any way. Because of that the issue the students are raising today is a very real one. Are the trustees refusing to object to our students being dragged away by government agents because they’re fine with this? Or even were involved?
The whole thing is very weird, very unclear why the president left, why a trustee has taken over, why no resistance to Trump, either on the grant cancellation or the deportation of our students. We should be protesting, but protesting against who?
I am somewhat amazed how quickly this University folded without any fight. You would hope that an elite, private university with a large endowment, distinguished faculty (with tenure) and a large and rich/powerful alumnus would be able to counter this to some degree. Presumably there are faculty members who are ‘experts’ in law, ethics, politics, moral philosophy, economics and the history of fascism and totalitarianism, but they appear have little use in a real-world dispute. You might argue that with such ungentlemanly tactics deployed against them, this intellectual and moral ‘expertise’ counts for nothing, but it does show modern Universities as essentially weak and vulnerable organisations who are largely at the mercy of external funding sources (which can be easily turned off) and which don’t have universal public support.
T. Green,
I think the answer to the question you raise is this:
There is a professional hierarchy in universities, with trustees (or in the case of public institutions, regents), way up in the firmament. They are followed by the administration, followed by tenured faculty, and so on. At each level, there is insensitivity – not always, but as a general rule – to that beneath it. Although I am not familiar with how things work at Columbia, my impression is that the top layer simply made a decision with no regard for the layers beneath. That is why the faculty (and I think some Columbia administrators) can’t easily push back.
Peter (O and W)-I respectfully disagree that the caving in of the university is some simple thing of a cascade of simpering starting with the trustees on down. Or more precisely you could argue that it is such a case, but what I would like to argue is the brave, ethical “stand up and fight” viewpoint espoused here, while noble, has been argued in an unrealistic way that simply does not comport with reality.
1.As I have mentioned before, the Trump administration is in a no-lose position. Why? Because they have (short term) control over all federal funding. If that is cut off, even for just a few years, the university completely ceases to function, and will only function when that money is returned. The build back will also take time to reverse the damage.
2.Fighting this in court (which likely will have to happen at some point anyway) means that the frozen funds remain frozen until the case is ultimately resolved. As you have seen with respect to the Trump prosecution cases under Biden, this often occurs on a glacial time scale. The Trump admin as much as anyone knows this-this is what their lawyers do for a living.
3.The eventual winning of the court battle requires essentially no conservative justices ruling in favor of Trump. This is unrealistic, most of all because in fact under the way Title 6 and Title 9 are written, the administration would at least partially have a legit case. See recent rulings for Cooper Union and Berkeley by Obama-appointed judges.
4.But lets say it goes eventually to the SC-I’d say it is under a 50% chance that this court reverses the holding of all of the money. By then anyway destruction has been accomplished.
5.Peter W asks why not sue and negotiate? That seemingly doesn’t work because suing provides no additional leverage. Normally when you sue you have some financial leverage over the plaintiff. If he/she loses there are damages they have to pay. Here there is none because winning the suit does no damage to Trump’s administration other than simply eventually (after a long time) return the funding to status quo.
It seems to me the issue here is that universities have no power, at least now. This is the consequence of the voters in this country handing power in all branches of government to extremists. One way you know the “fight” position is naive is that no legal scholar I know of (correct me if I am wrong) has written a detailed and plausible way it could work, not Pozen (who Peter W links to here), not Eisgruber, not Vladeck, etc. I think what we are learning is that the laws as written in this country that we thought could prevent things like this-only did so because politicians followed norms unwritten in the law, and this current group of extremists are willing to toss those norms out. Meaning that laws can be interpreted in lots of ways and if you are willing to brazenly interpret them in ways no other administration would, and you control all branches of government, there isn’t much that can stand in your way until you are gone. I loath the fact that universities are run more and more by trustees that intervene in how universities operate, but here, aside from self-immolation for the sake of what is right and moral (which I am actually not completely against to be honest), the brave option doesn’t do anything practical for you.
I would be happy to learn from legal scholars why this viewpoint is not true-in fact it would make me VERY happy-so if any are reading this-please rebut.
Dave,
I don’t think either of us are lawyers competent to accurately game this out.
My problem right now is that I have no idea what is going on, and neither does anyone I’ve talked to, some of whom usually are well-informed. We’ve been given zero information by anyone since the president left, essentially just told that we should trust the trustees. Given the totality of everything that I’ve been seeing, I personally no longer trust them or their judgement, and I’m not the only one.
We’ll see what happens next, the pattern so far is that late each Friday we get new and more and more disturbing news. Not looking forward to what we’ll hear late tomorrow…
Hi Dave,
I think you may have misunderstood me. I would love to “ethically stand up and fight”, but I also understand that it is not easy. I don’t disagree with any of your points, and I am, as it happens, experiencing a powerfully negative frisson of defeatism (concerning court fights and other attempts to slow the onslaught of stupidity-driven policies). In the above, I was only making a statement about the power structure of universities and why this makes it difficult for lowly faculty (or even principled administrators) to make a difference, even before legal action is taken. As I expect many others do, I feel cut off at the knees, seeing the ineffectual response in all quarters (sorry about continuing a bad metaphor).
Hi Peter W-based on information I have, I’d place a large bet that Katrina was forced out. The scenario from the Prozen piece you posted is something I have evidence for. That’s all I can say I do know.I agree-I am not a lawyer, which is one reason I’d like at least one good legal scholar to give an outline for a means to fight here…but I have seen none.
Peter O-the power structure of universities has something that over the last 20 years has evolved in a way that I feel is highly detrimental to the health of the universities and is part of the problems we have all faced even prior to 2024. This I fully agree with.
Dave,
It’s exactly the Prozen analysis that has caused me to no longer trust the trustees. In particular his conclusion:
“If this is indeed the best interpretation, we are witnessing the conjuncture of (1) the radically undemocratic formal power wielded by Columbia’s board of trustees, a self-perpetuating body of twenty-odd individuals; with (2) the radically undemocratic political power wielded by a small set of university insiders aligned with the White House, at least on this issue.”
When was any university ever run democratically? For example we never vote on who is our president-it is and has always been a decision of trustees. What am I missing here?
https://www.princeton.edu/~paw/web_exclusives/more/more_17.html
I suppose the Prozen part that is “undemocratic” is the idea that a group of rogue faculty decided what should be done with agreement of the trustees, and when our president attempted to claim we didn’t cave the way people think, she was removed. I only have evidence that her leaked words caused her to be forced out. I think the weight given to the demands made by some faculty in February might be somewhat of a red herring (I have more weak evidence this is the case). The trustees were considering a lot of this already when Shafik was here. Either way, Trustees always undemocratically decide who will run the university-that is not a new thing.
Dave,
I should make clear that my problem with the trustees is not the “undemocratic” issue. If you go to any Columbia faculty meeting over the years, having decisions made by the people there wouldn’t obviously be a good idea.
Very specifically, what’s bothering me right now are the following facts and questions:
1. There was a group of insiders intent on convincing Armstong to implement extreme pro-Israel policy changes that was active meeting with her Jan. 17 and in organizing the early February petition. What has this group been doing since early February? Are they in contact with and have influence over the Trump “Joint Task Force on AntiSemitism? Are any of the trustees involved in this?
2. An insider leaked the transcript to the Free Press clearly with the intention of fighting insufficient dedication to implementing the Trump group’s demands. Who did this? What is their relation to the Trump group and to the trustees?
3. The trustees fired Armstrong, it appears because the leak had made the Trump group unhappy with her. If so, why are the trustees firing a president for making a Trump group unhappy? Were any of the trustees involved in the leak in any way? Did any of them feel that firing Armstrong was a good idea because they want to see more dedication to agreeing to and forcing through demands from the Trump group?
4. They trustees have issued no statement about the Khalil or other deportation cases. Are there any trustees happy to see pro-Palestinian members of the community deported? There was an article in the Forward claiming ““some members of Columbia’s board had also reported Khalil to officials.” Evidently there was a statement yesterday from the university that “No member of Columbia leadership has ever requested the presence of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents on or near campus to target students.” This statement does not deny the Forward claim. I have exactly the same question as the students chaining themselves to the ironwork (which, by the way, obstructed nothing and bothered no one): is the Forward claim true? If not, let’s hear an explicit denial, if it is true, let’s hear the name(s) of those who reported Khalil.
There are a lot of things the trustees are doing for which there are good reasons they can’t discuss details with the community (legal advice and strategy, negotiation details and strategy of how to deal with the Trump people). I don’t see any reason though why they can’t help to restore my trust and that of others by answering the questions above.
I agree by and large. My concern list is a bit different, and I have some information related to this that might make you more and less concerned about specific points you make-but better discussed over a coffee if you care than here.
This is interesting:
https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2025/04/princeton-news-adpol-issuing-bonds-same-day-federal-government-pauses-grants
maybe a mild indicator that Princeton has some things in mind to fight….