In an unprecedented move, the Trump administration mandated that Columbia University reconfigure the leadership of its Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies Department. This decision is perceived as an affront to academic freedom, signaling potential future federal intervention in higher education. Columbia was informed that the department must enter “academic receivership” for a duration of no less than five years. This stipulation was among several conditions tied to accessing federal funding, following the retraction of $400 million over claims of antisemitism.
This intervention is viewed as a severe breach of convention within academic circles. Joan Scott, a historian linked to the academic freedom committee of the American Association of University Professors, remarked on its severity, noting that such actions were unprecedented even during the McCarthy era in the United States. President Donald Trump has previously threatened to withhold federal funds from colleges that do not align with his policies, touching on issues from transgender athletes’ participation in women’s sports to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Recently, the administration launched investigations into 52 universities in alignment with Trump’s DEI crackdown.
Columbia University seems to be at the forefront of Trump’s agenda, likely due to its association with large pro-Palestinian protests earlier in the year. The Justice Department is actively probing whether the university concealed students involved in these protests, whom the U.S. holds accountable for their actions. Additionally, Trump and his administration have accused the demonstrators of being “pro-Hamas,” a reference to the militant organization involved in attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023.
A letter from the administration demands further institutional compliance, requiring Columbia to prohibit masks intended to hide identities, redefine antisemitism, overhaul student disciplinary procedures, and revise undergraduate admissions and recruitment policies. Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, criticized the orders for blurring the lines between institutional autonomy and federal control.
Historically, the federal government has allowed colleges substantial leeway to govern themselves, within legal bounds, and the principle of academic freedom has been upheld by the Supreme Court as a facet of the First Amendment. The autonomy granted to academic institutions is recognized as a defining feature that attracts international scholars to the United States.
Trump’s lack of fondness for elite American institutions is well-documented, and his administration’s recent moves mark a rare occasion of leveraging federal power to enforce compliance. In particular, an announcement made last week revoked $400 million in contracts and prompted a review of an additional $5 billion in grants due to antisemitism complaints. The revocation is already affecting Columbia’s research projects, particularly those supported by the National Institutes of Health.
Academic leaders nationwide are expressing concern over what they perceive as federal overreach. According to Ted Mitchell, the letter has generated anxiety among university presidents, regardless of political affiliations or institutional types. Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional law expert and dean of Berkeley School of Law, contends that the federal government’s push for receivership oversteps its jurisdiction and infringes upon academic freedom.
Responses from faculty members and free speech advocates have been critical, with Columbia classics professor Joseph Howley stating that the demands are largely impractical and beyond governmental authority. Some organizations, like the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, view the administration’s approach as a dangerous precedent for increasing censorship in academic environments.
Columbia University has vowed to consider the administration’s demands, affirming its commitment to its mission, student welfare, and combating all forms of discrimination. The broader academic community remains cautious, viewing this situation as a potential harbinger of increased federal intervention in higher education across the nation.
