Trump DOE Attacks Columbia Accreditation

WSJ (“Trump Administration Attacks Columbia’s Accreditation“):

The Trump administration attacked Columbia University’s accreditation, arguing the school is in violation of federal antidiscrimination laws.

The Education Department told the organization through which Columbia is accredited that the school has violated civil rights law over its handling of campus antisemitism, and no longer appears to meet the standards for accreditation.

The move doesn’t revoke Columbia’s accreditation—without which the university would be virtually unable to operate—but is a significant escalation of the government’s battle with the school. The government urged the accreditor to work with the school to make sure it comes into compliance with federal law, and “take appropriate action” if Columbia fails to do so.

“After Hamas’ October 7, 2023, terror attack on Israel, Columbia University’s leadership acted with deliberate indifference towards the harassment of Jewish students on its campus,” said Education Secretary Linda McMahon. “This is not only immoral, but also unlawful.”

The Middle States Commission on Higher Education, which accredits Columbia, said it had received the letter but had no comment. Columbia said it is aware of the government’s concerns and has addressed them directly with the accreditor.

“Columbia is deeply committed to combatting antisemitism on our campus. We take this issue seriously and are continuing to work with the federal government to address it,” a spokesperson said.

[…]

In March, the Trump administration canceled $400 million in federal grants and contracts to the school over antisemitism concerns. The school agreed to an initial list of demands. The government is now pressing to put Columbia under a consent decree, a form of federal oversight that would place a judge in charge of ensuring that Columbia complies with government demands.

Last month, a government investigation found that Columbia had violated federal civil-rights law by ignoring the harassment of Jewish students by classmates. The investigation found that the university didn’t investigate or punish vandalism including the repeated drawing of swastikas; didn’t enforce rules for protests; and didn’t establish ways to combat antisemitism until last summer.

My initial position was that the allegations of antisemitism was, no pun intended, trumped up. However, the report links an August 2024 story in the paper headlined “Columbia Failed to Stop Hate, Violence Against Jews on Campus, New Report Says.” Key bits:

A task force of faculty members set up to address rising antisemitism on campus sharply criticized the school for failing to end widespread antagonism against its Jewish students. The group has offered a new definition of antisemitism, which includes celebrating violence against Jews or Israelis and discriminating against them based on their ties to Israel. If adopted, it could create new avenues to discipline pro-Palestinian protesters. It also recommends bias training to recognize and prevent antisemitism in the future.

[…]

The task force interviewed nearly 500 students across 20 meetings and found antisemitism against students pervasive on the campus grounds—in dormitories, clubs and classrooms—and on social media.

One student, who had placed a mezuza on her dorm room doorway in accordance with Jewish law, was targeted starting in October when people began banging on her door at night, demanding she explain Israel’s actions. She moved out of the dorm, the report said.

Jewish students walking on or near campus reported being followed, stripped of necklaces and pinned against walls. Some were forced out of nonpolitical social and athletic clubs when leaders signed a petition condemning Israel’s war in Gaza.

Ester Fuchs, a professor of international and public affairs and political science, co-chaired the task force and attended some of the listening sessions.

“The kids were frustrated, they were sad, they were angry and they were disappointed,” she said. “Not only did they have these experiences, but what it revealed was a lot of broken systems in the university.”

In the classroom, reports of threats, ridicule and exclusion prompted some Jewish students to avoid particular majors and teachers. At the School of Public Health, a faculty member called Jewish Columbia donors “wealthy white capitalists” who “laundered” money at the university, the report said.

One faculty member told an Israeli veteran she had served in an “army of murderers,” the report said. Another suggested Israeli military veterans shouldn’t be allowed to study on campus. Military service is mandatory for most Israelis.

In April, after pro-Palestinian supporters pitched an encampment on the campus, Jewish students reported the antagonism worsened.

Protesters shouted “October 7th is going to be every day for you,” in reference to the killing of about 1,200 people by Hamas militants on that day last fall.

“People that you sat in class with, you had drinks with, you had lunch and dinner with, the next day they say they hope your entire family dies,” one student told the task force. “If I can put it in one word, it is heartbreaking.”

Reports of this sort of thing happening all across the country, particularly at elite schools, were widespread. Some of the professorial remarks would, under ordinary circumstances, be protected under longstanding notions of academic freedom. But they also create a hostile environment. Beyond that, Jewish students of these professors could not possibly expect fair treatment.

I’m nonetheless skeptical that these incidents warrant stripping one of the most prestigious universities on the planet of its accreditation.A task force whose mission was to find evidence of antisemitism during a particularly high point of tension between Israel and the Palestinians on a campus of some 35,000 students was going to have no trouble finding it. (And, yes, I agree with their conclusion that attacking Jewish-American university students because of outrage over the policies of the government of Israel is antisemitic.) I haven’t and likely won’t read the full report from August, but I can’t imagine university leadership simply ignored these incidents.

Further, it’s rather clear that, while Columbia is the first being targeted, it won’t be the last:

Accreditation is a stamp of approval that empowers universities to participate in the federal student-loan system including accepting Pell Grants. Since most students borrow money through the federal government to attend university, losing accreditation is a catastrophic—and rare—blow to a school. 

In April, Trump signed an executive order designed to shake up college accreditation, which Trump has called his “secret weapon” in his bid to remake higher education.

The order aimed to use the accrediting system to combat what Trump views as discriminatory practices and “ideological overreach” on college campuses, by putting a greater focus on intellectual diversity among faculty and student success.

While I absolutely share the goals of increasing intellectual diversity among the faculty and a more open and civil dialogue on campuses and elsewhere, this strikes me as a dangerous way of going about it. As I always remind champions of a super-empowered executive, we’ll eventually have an administration in power whose views you abhor. They, too, will have that power.