There was a Senate Town Hall held here at Columbia last night, which I should have attended, but didn’t (I thought it would be pointless debate about possible reform of the Senate, my mistake). The Columbia Spectator has an article about what happened, and I’m going by that (happy to hear any different perspective from someone else who was there).
The Town Hall was the first time that any of the trustees have publicly answered questions about what they are doing, and the questions put to them were very much the ones that have been bothering me. Evidently one of the two trustees, Dean Dakolias, was only there for 15 minutes, but another, Keith Goggin, answered questions for an hour.
I’ve met Goggin socially a couple times (he’s the only one of the trustees I’ve ever talked to), and he struck me as a smart, decent and thoroughly reasonable person, intensely devoted to working in the best interest of the university. In a conversation last summer, he described his point of view on what had happened over the past year as the university struggled to deal with the protests and the opposing forces they had unleashed. From everything I’d seen and from this conversation with him, I thought the university administration at all levels, up to and including the trustees, had done the best it could to deal with an extremely difficult set of problems.
As Columbia’s struggle with the Trump administration began early this year, I was fairly confident that the trustees could be relied on to deal with the new set of difficulties. The evening of March 21 was a huge shock, as the news came in that the president and trustees had caved in to the demands of the Trump panel. When I got back to the office a few days later, my attempt to understand what had happened led to my starting this series of blog postings. Over the next few days what I learned made me more and more concerned, and seriously shook my earlier trust in the judgment of the trustees. In particular I was shocked and appalled to learn that the trustees had decided not to go to court in response to the illegal cancellation of university scientific research grants. I also was disturbed by the refusal of the trustees to support in any way pro-Palestinian students who were arrested and face deportation.
These two concerns are very widely shared, and were the main questions raised at the Senate Town Hall. On the topic of the pro-Palestinian students, nothing was said that indicates the trustees would support them in any way. On the cave-in and refusal to go to court:
Several audience members asked Dakolias and Goggin about the University’s decision to not legally challenge the federal government’s oversight and demands. Many compared Columbia’s response to that of Harvard University, which sued the Trump administration on Monday after it froze over $2 billion in grants.
Dakolias was first to respond to a question on that topic, saying that Columbia has “obligations” because the federal government is the University’s regulator.
“That said, we’re always looking at … all of our options,” he said. “But you can’t expect us not to talk to the regulators that monitor, that oversee this University.”
When audience members asked why exactly Columbia has not taken the same actions as Harvard, Goggin urged them to compare the respective letters Columbia and Harvard received from the Trump administration. He said that “our letter was not nearly as absolute as the letter that was sent to Harvard.”
Columbia indicated it was complying with several of the Trump administration’s demands in a March 21 document sent to federal agencies. Harvard rejected the Trump administration’s demands on April 11.
“Many of the things that are in the letter to Columbia University were things that we have been working very hard on, in some cases with the senate,” Goggin said. He specifically cited disciplinary action for participants of the April 2024 “Gaza Solidarity Encampment” and Hamilton Hall occupation, which the Trump administration letter demanded. Columbia completed those disciplinary proceedings the day it received the letter….
“We have engaged with lawyers. We’ve done substantial analysis on the litigation position,” Goggin said. “If we can do something that we were going to do anyway, without having to litigate, and restore the things that we care about here, that is … in my opinion, our best path.”
More attendees asked about the fact that the Trump administration has not restored the $400 million it cut from Columbia, and whether that has pushed the University to reconsider not raising a legal challenge.
Goggin stated that, although an agreement has not yet been reached, the University is still negotiating with the federal government. He added that “the fact that we haven’t initiated a lawsuit yet doesn’t impede our ability to initiate a lawsuit.”
While I understand the point of view Goggin is expressing, it sees this as just a business negotiation. The response by anyone to a president of the US taking power and trying to exercise unconstitutional dictatorial powers should be to try to stop the descent into dictatorship in any way possible, especially through the courts. Yes, you need to talk to the regulators, but you also need to go to court to stop the illegal behavior (grant cancellations) being used to try and force you to do what they want.
Goggin gave no indication what the university is still negotiating about. Some things that were already agreed to in the cave-in (e.g. hiring new pro-Israel professors) only qualify as “something that we were going to do anyway” if a cave-in to demands of pro-Israel groups was already a done deal. It’s hard to have confidence in whatever judgments the trustees are making in what they are willing to do to get the research funds back.
There appear to be two ways this can now go:
- Negotiations break down and Columbia joins Harvard in going to court.
- A deal is made with the Trump panel, with the university not challenging the exercise of dictatorial powers and agreeing to some list of demands.
The actions of the trustees so far have done a huge amount of damage to the reputation of the university. If they take the first route, they may be able to start on fixing this. If they take the second, their place and that of the university as a historically momentous disgraceful appeasement of Fascism are assured. Already, people are painting “Vichy-on-the-Hudson” signs nearby. The trustees need to take action to not make this the permanent perception of this institution.
