 |
| Pro-Palestinian protest at Columbia in the early days of the Gaza war (JTA) |
Columbia University announced Wednesday night that it had agreed to a $220 million settlement with the Trump administration, bringing a close to months of tense negotiations between the two parties over allegations of antisemitism on the school’s campus.
“While Columbia does not admit to wrongdoing with this resolution agreement, the institution’s leaders have recognized, repeatedly, that Jewish students and faculty have experienced painful, unacceptable incidents, and that reform was and is needed,” Columbia wrote in a statement announcing the deal Wednesday.
The deal will free up hundreds of millions of dollars in federal research money that was canceled by the Trump administration in March, one of the first salvos by the administration in its campaign against campus antisemitism and pro-Palestinian protests. It is seen as a template by which other universities targeted by Trump might make their own deals…
The deal will also codify an existing set of Trump administration demands that Columbia met in March as part of a bid to win back its federal funding. It builds on the school’s July 15 commitments to combat antisemitism on campus, including the adoption of an Israel-related antisemitism definition. These demands include adherence to laws barring the consideration of race in admissions and hiring. Columbia stated that the deal would allow it to maintain “autonomy and authority over faculty hiring, admissions, and academic decision-making.”
An independent monitor will oversee the deal’s implementation and issue reports twice a year, according to the announcement.
What’s pleasing about this is that a major Ivy League university has been held accountable to the tune of $220 million for allowing antisemitism to take place on its campus under the guise of ‘free speech’. Columbia admitted that Jewish students and faculty have endured ‘painful, unacceptable incidents’and that reform was needed. They are also paying a hefty financial price for that failure.
But the caveat is glaring: Columbia has not admitted to any
wrongdoing. They do not acknowledge that allowing the pro-Palestinian protests
in the early days of Israel’s war against Hamas - which fueled and exacerbated
those antisemitic incidents was a mistake. It’s as if they’re saying: “We have our cake and ate it too.” You can’t simultaneously claim you did nothing wrong
while admitting your inaction led to harmful, even threatening outcomes.
It is with that caveat in mind that one has to wonder what the future holds when a president from a political party less friendly to Israel is elected. A party that appears to value the free speech of Palestinian protesters - many of whom call for the destruction of Israel - more than it values the rights of Jewish students not to be harassed. Will they claim that chanting ‘Death to Israel’ or ‘Death to Jews’ is only antisemitic depending on context? That it is otherwise protected speech? Will they defend calls to ‘globalize the intifada’ the same way - even as they claim not to agree? Will we once again see campus protests turn into hostile environments where Jewish students feel intimidated on their way to class?
If Columbia refuses to admit they did anything wrong, then
under a future administration more sympathetic to their politics, we can assume
they will allow such incidents to happen again.
But for the time being, at least, we have a president who
genuinely seems to care about antisemitism and is backing that concern with
action. He has threatened serious financial consequences for schools that
tolerate antisemitism disguised as free speech, and they are beginning to
respond to his demands for change.
Cynics (and there are many) say that the president doesn’t really care about antisemitism is merely using it as a tool to push his anti-DEI agenda. The anti DEI allegation is not entirely baseless. But the fact is that DEI policies have had a negative impact on Jewish students, too. Some of whom were rejected in favor of less qualified applicants in order to meet diversity quotas.
I’m not saying diversity isn’t important. However, it should
not come at the expense of merit.
The proper approach is to seek diversity among the most
qualified candidates, while remaining blind to race, ethnicity, or religion.
The idea of quotas should be abhorrent to any fair-minded person who believes
in rewarding achievement, not ticking demographic boxes. Lowering standards to
fulfill diversity goals not only undermines excellence, it also casts a shadow
over truly qualified minority students, who may be seen as having been accepted
only because they checked the right box.
To that end part of the agreement with Columbia included the following
line:
These demands include adherence to laws barring the
consideration of race in admissions and hiring.
The Trump administration has already spoken loud and clear
on this issue long before now. If DEI is used to recruit students and faculty
in a discriminatory way, there will be a financial price to pay. Universities
found to be doing so risk losing federal funding. Judicial challenges to these
policies have not succeeded, and some schools have already eliminated their DEI
offices.
It’s hard for me to understand how some Jews can oppose
Trump’s antisemitism policies, claiming they violate free speech or promote
racism by limiting DEI. Unfortunately, this is the kind of thinking embraced by
progressives who believe equity requires leveling the playing field by lowering
the standards for all. But in practice, DEI can hurt the very people it claims
to help. If I were a black student who met the merit criteria on my own, I
would hate the implication that I only got in because of my race.
At the end of the day, Trump’s anti-DEI policies align
closely with his policies against antisemitism. Those who cannot see that are
blinded by progressive ideals that may sound noble in theory but in reality are
doing more harm than good. Both to this great nation and to the Jewish people.
