Latest news with #MiddleEasternStudies
Reuters
6 days ago
- Politics
- Reuters
Judge dismisses Columbia University faculty lawsuit over Trump funding cuts, demands
NEW YORK, June 16 (Reuters) - A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit against the Trump administration by two labor unions for Columbia University faculty that challenged funding cuts and demands to overhaul student discipline and boost oversight for a Middle Eastern studies department. U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil in Manhattan said the American Association of University Professors and the American Federation of Teachers lacked legal standing to sue, with Columbia itself "conspicuously absent" from the case. "Our democracy cannot very well function if individual judges issue extraordinary relief to every plaintiff who clamors to object to executive action," Vyskocil wrote. "If any funds have been wrongfully withheld, such funds may be recovered at the end of a successful lawsuit by the appropriate plaintiff in an appropriate forum," she added. "It is not the role of a district court judge to direct the policies of the Executive Branch first and ask questions later." Both plaintiffs plan to appeal. "The Trump administration's threats and coercion at Columbia University are part of an authoritarian agenda that extends far beyond Columbia," Todd Wolfson, president of the professors' union, said in a statement. "We will continue to fight back." Vyskocil, a Trump appointee, ruled 12 days after the Department of Education threatened to revoke Columbia's accreditation over the university's alleged failure to protect Jewish students, including from pro-Palestinian protests. Columbia was the first major U.S. university targeted in President Donald Trump's effort to conform higher education to his policies. It has acceded to some White House demands, including by boosting security and announcing a review, opens new tab of its Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies department. Other schools, including Harvard University, have fought Trump in court. The labor unions' lawsuit originally targeted $400 million of Columbia funding cuts, and later sought an injunction to prevent the Trump administration from interfering with more than $5 billion of grants and contracts. Vyskocil said that to the extent the unions "feel chilled" by recent changes at Columbia, they have not shown that the changes were "merely the 'predictable' response" to White House demands. The case is American Association of University Professors et al v. U.S. Department of Justice et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 25-02429.
New York Times
6 days ago
- Politics
- New York Times
Negotiation or Capitulation? How Columbia Got Off Trump's Hot Seat.
It was a turning point in the Trump administration's efforts to bring elite academia to heel. The White House had made an example of Columbia University by axing $400 million in federal grants, and now it was saying that the Ivy League school would have to acquiesce to a bill of demands if it were to have any hope of recouping the money. One of the dictates handed down in March involved the university's Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies Department. The White House, which said Columbia had failed to protect Jewish students from antisemitic harassment, wanted the school to strip the department of its autonomy, a rare administrative step that was viewed as a serious blow to academic freedom. The university, which was the first high-profile target in the administration's war on higher education, had a different idea. Quietly, university officials were trying to navigate a narrower path, appeasing President Trump by cracking down on protests and making changes to student discipline. But the measures adopted by Columbia were not as drastic as what the White House had wanted. The university's leaders sought to shape Mr. Trump's demands through negotiation instead of fighting them through litigation, and to do that while maintaining core ideals that had defined the university for nearly 275 years. Columbia's approach stood in stark contrast to the tack taken by Harvard University, which turned to the courts to fight Mr. Trump. While many in the academic world have accused Columbia of caving to Mr. Trump's pressure, the university's strategy — so far — has limited the bleeding to $400 million, even as Harvard has absorbed cut after cut, stretching into billions of dollars. While opponents of the Trump administration's crackdown have lauded Harvard for standing its ground, it is far from clear which school will be better off in the long run. And the question remains whether Columbia's path can offer a road map for other universities attacked by the president. 'Following the law and attempting to resolve a complaint is not capitulation,' Claire Shipman, Columbia's acting president, said last week in a statement. 'We must maintain our autonomy and independent governance.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Time of India
05-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Why is Columbia University's accreditation under threat from the Trump administration?
FAQs Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel Trump's administration is trying to take away Columbia University's accreditation because it says the university didn't protect Jewish students properly. This move could stop Columbia students from getting federal loans and aid, which would make it super expensive and hard to attend for many students, as per Education Secretary Linda McMahon said Columbia ignored the harassment of Jewish students after the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. McMahon called Columbia's actions 'immoral' and 'unlawful', saying the university didn't follow anti-discrimination laws. She wrote a letter to the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, saying Columbia doesn't seem to meet the standards needed to stay accredited, according to an NDTV World accreditation is super important because it decides if a school can get federal money from the US Education Department. Columbia already lost $400 million in federal grants and contracts earlier in February 2025 due to how it handled antisemitism issues. Even though Columbia made changes, like fixing its Middle Eastern Studies department, the Trump team was still not satisfied, as per the report by has also gone after other universities like Harvard, blaming them for not protecting Jewish students during protests over the Israel-Gaza war. The whole situation is part of Trump's bigger fight with top US colleges, accusing them of being unfair and not doing enough to stop antisemitism, as stated in the Trump administration believes that the university failed to curb anti-semitism in the might not get federal loans or aid, making it very expensive to study there.
Epoch Times
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Epoch Times
Harvard Redirects $250 Million to Research Amid Federal Funding Freeze
Harvard University will allocate $250 million over the next year to support campus research, after the Trump administration suspended more than $2.6 billion in federal grants and awards to the Ivy League school. The money will help sustain 'critical research activity for a transitional period,' Harvard President Alan Garber and Provost John Manning said in The money will be drawn from a pool reserved for Harvard's central administration, which includes the offices of the president and provost, rather than from the university's endowment. This supplement adds to the roughly $500 million Harvard allocates to research every year. Still, the university leaders acknowledged that the additional funding will not fully offset the loss of federal dollars. According to Harvard's financial report, in Warning of 'difficult decisions and sacrifices' ahead across Harvard's schools, Garber and Manning said deans and academic leaders have been asked to make 'informed, prudent' decisions to adapt their programs to 'a changing funding environment.' They promised support in helping researchers identify alternative funding sources, but did not outline any specific strategy. 'We understand the uncertainty that these times have brought and the burden our community faces,' they wrote. 'We are here to support you.' Related Stories 5/3/2025 4/25/2025 Wednesday's announcement is the latest in a series of budgetary steps Harvard has taken to manage the fallout from the federal funding loss. In March, the university implemented a hiring freeze, and the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences denied admission to all applicants on its waitlist for admission. In April, Harvard turned to Wall Street to The federal funding freeze stems from escalating tensions between the university and the Trump administration. The dispute initially centered around campus anti-Semitism and later broadened to include concerns over ideological bias and Harvard's commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) goals, which the administration says run afoul of federal anti-discrimination laws. In a The administration also called for an audit of specific programs—most notably the Center for Middle Eastern Studies—that allegedly 'fuel anti-Semitic harassment or reflect ideological capture.' The audit would need to identify any faculty who had 'discriminated against Jewish or Israeli students' or 'incited students to violate Harvard's rules' following the Hamas-led terror attacks on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, and Israel's response in Gaza, which triggered a wave of campus protests across the United States. On April 16, Harvard publicized both the administration's letter and Garber's response, in which he categorically rejected the proposed conditions, stating that the university 'will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.' That same day, the administration announced it was Harvard has filed a
Forbes
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
The Fight For Higher Education Will Be Won On Financial Ground
Academic Freedom Is Under Siege getty Although the changes currently shaking American society are being celebrated by some and opposed by others, there is one thing on which we should all be able to agree: the U.S. federal government is not what it was 100 days ago. Over the past few months, we have witnessed two radical trajectories of change, each occurring in opposite directions. On the one hand, the Administration has slashed federal services with a zeal reminiscent of Ronald Reagan. Whole departments have been eliminated or gutted, and major areas of American life, which formerly fell under executive-branch oversight, are now being deregulated. But, at the same time, the Administration has also initiated the most radical expansion of the executive branch since the New Deal, taking major steps to exert control in spaces that previously fell outside the federal government's purview. One such space is the American classroom. Until recently, the federal government respected a basic boundary in its relationship with American schools: it tried to influence policies and programs, but it never tried to interfere with the curriculum itself. Though there have been attempts to standardize performance metrics, as in the case of No Child Left Behind, there has never been a serious attempt by the federal government to control the ideological content of what's actually being taught. States, for their part, were entrusted with full control over public K-12 curricula, while private schools and colleges were considered sacrosanct. Until now, the notion that federal officials might try to dictate what was taught at a private college was simply unthinkable. Then, the unthinkable started happening. First came the infamous "Dear Colleague" letter, which contained the following sentence: The letter focused primarily on policies and programs, but there could be no mistaking the meaning of this line. "Toxic indoctrination" refers to teaching, not policies. "False premise" refers to an argument, not a program. The question of whether the United States was built on 'systemic and structural racism' exemplifies the kind of inquiry worth consideration in a classroom. But all of this was mere rhetoric until the showdown with Columbia University, at which point it became very real. After stripping the school of $400 million in federal grants, the government issued a list of demands, one of which explicitly required changes to the faculty and curriculum of Columbia's Middle Eastern Studies department. In response, Columbia capitulated. To state the obvious, this was the wrong decision. It was wrong from every perspective, and in every sense of that word: In America, free speech is a right, and government control of speech is wrong. Period. Regardless of how harmful or beneficial we may judge the content of that speech to be. This is one of few moral values we've always been united around as a people, perhaps because it was one of the main values that led to the formation of our country to begin with. There is no nuance needed on this particular point, no "both sides" argument to be made. Because this is no longer a battle about any particular issue. It isn't a battle over DEI, or antisemitism, or Title VI compliance, or "wokeness". It is rather a battle over who controls the curriculum in American higher education. And if we lose this battle, we lose the very soul of what makes American colleges and universities a global beacon of free inquiry. Succumbing to government control — even "reasonable" control, even "helpful" control — is simply not an option. So yes, tyranny should be resisted. And yes, Harvard has been making better decisions than Columbia, by fighting instead of caving. But it isn't enough. Fighting back, while necessary, is not sufficient. Resistance alone won't solve the underlying problem. Because thus far, none of us - not Columbia, nor Harvard, nor any other school I can think of - has owned the part that we ourselves played in paving the road to this Orwellian nightmare. The uncomfortable truth is that higher education helped to create the very vulnerability now being exploited. For decades, colleges and universities across the country have relied — increasingly, and in some cases, almost exclusively — on federal dollars to meet their ever-growing budgets. And the dollars to which I'm referring are not those which come in the form of research grants. The explosion in tuition prices over the past 40 years was not market-driven. It was underwritten by federal student loan programs that asked no questions and imposed virtually no limits. Colleges could raise prices endlessly because someone — the federal government — was always willing to foot the bill. Students borrowed sums that would take a lifetime to repay, while schools looked the other way. The reason, of course, was that the schools collected their money upfront, insulating themselves from any long-term risk. It was a tragedy of the commons - a short-term financial arms race whose long-term outcome was always going to be collapse. For most colleges, it is student loan programs and tuition assistance in forms like Pell aid – not research grants – which end up being the primary source of federal revenue. And it is these same aid programs which are providing the government with such tremendous leverage over supposedly independent institutions. The government's interference in the affairs of "private" schools is only half the story; the other half is that all of these schools stopped being "private" quite some time ago. We, America's colleges and universities, made education so expensive that for most of us it isn't possible to operate without government assistance. To move forward, we must therefore tell two truths at once, never sacrificing one for the other. First, it is wrong — deeply wrong — for the government to try to control what schools teach. But second, it's entirely our own fault that the government ever had this leverage to begin with. Recognizing this dual reality will be required if we want to move toward any real solution. Because the real solution isn't just fighting back. The real solution is to rebuild higher education on a more stable foundation. The resources already exist to do this, at least among the wealthiest schools. The Ivy League collectively controls endowments worth hundreds of billions of dollars - enough to provide free tuition to every undergraduate student, forever. Yet those same schools continue to collect billions of dollars each year in tuition and fees, even as they complain about losing federal funding. This is the hypocrisy that has left higher education so vulnerable to political attack. This is why a Nebraska farmer, paying taxes to subsidize Harvard, might become resentful. This is why Trump's attacks, though deeply un-American, have nevertheless found an eager audience. If we want to reclaim the moral high ground, we must do more than just resist government overreach. We must also abandon the broken model that made that overreach possible. We must return to a core value which that same Nebraska farmer would surely celebrate: the value of financial independence. Admittedly, this is easier said than done, especially at schools with smaller endowments. Most of us are facing a significant fundraising challenge, which we must meet head-on. Though the numbers may look daunting, it is doable. Colleges survived without federal funding in the past; we can learn to do it again in the future. At our college, we've been on a path for the last few years to achieve financial independence through a new, pay-it-forward funding model. The idea is simple - students don't pay tuition up front, instead signing a pledge to give to the college after graduation. Right now we only have about 3.5% of our students on this model, but eventually, once we are fully living into it we'll be financially free. Our alumni will be crowd-funding our current students, meaning we won't need government funding in the form of loan programs or tuition is not the only path to financial independence, but it's the one we are attempting. Ultimately, this return to financial independence is about more than just saving the soul of higher ed. It's also about healing our country's wounds – a process which can begin only when colleges themselves own the part that we played in creating this whole mess. It's true that conservatives have been abandoning a number of sacred American values – values that used to be universal, but are now being labeled as "liberal." But it's also true that the same thing has been happening the other way around. Liberals seem increasingly unwilling to live by any value that they now see as "conservative," even if it was previously shared by all. Allow me to suggest one such example: the notion that "freedom isn't free." These days, the only place you'll see that slogan is on a MAGA t-shirt. But that doesn't change the fact that it's still true. If we want to maintain our freedom, it's going to cost us something. The only question is whether we are willing to pay the price and begin the long journey towards financial independence.
