Harvard and Columbia, again
A tale of two schools
It’s been an extraordinary 24 hours in the saga of the federal government’s attack on our universities.
On Thursday morning, the Trump administration announced that it was withdrawing Harvard’s access to SEVIS, the system that processes international student visas, thereby rendering it impossible for Harvard to continue to enroll those students. This was a radical and hugely destructive escalation, and a great moment for Team Appeasement. See? This is what happens when you tangle with the government.
But in Trump times, you just have to wait a minute. That very evening, last night, the same government announced a “finding” that Columbia—which has done everything the government wanted, and more—is guilty of violating the Title VI rights of Jewish students. The “finding” might set up a situation in which the government can force Columbia into a consent decree, its activities monitored by a federal judge. Here, suddenly, was a very bad moment for Team Appeasement. This was the government with which we had been negotiating in “good faith”?
Let’s go back to the very beginning. Were there instances at Columbia where protests or attitudes against Israel crossed the line into anti-Semitism—for example, in student groups where visibly Jewish students were asked in particular for their opinion about Israel? The answer appears to be yes.
But did university administrators act, in the words of the federal finding, “with deliberate indifference” toward this situation?
No reasonable person could claim that they did. Early on, they suspended two student groups—including Jewish Voice for Peace, which, as the name suggests, consists primarily of Jewish students—for violating university protest rules. They disciplined multiple students throughout the year. They processed and prosecuted hundreds (thousands?) of OIE complaints of anti-Semitism, including at least one absurd case in which a Jewish professor who’d re-posted a critique of Elon Musk’s X platform for being friendly to the far right was dragged before the office for supposedly anti-Jewish hate speech. They set up a high-powered Anti-Semitism Task Force to interview students and produce reports about the climate on campus. (A peer review process would have been useful for the reports, but that’s not what the government is complaining about.) When students set up a pro-Palestine encampment, university authorities brought in the NYPD to clear it. When students re-established the encampment, the university sought tirelessly in endless negotiations to get the students to leave voluntarily. When the students refused to leave and instead took over Hamilton Hall, the university once again called in the police, to clear both Hamilton and the encampment. Despite widespread complaints and even threatened legal action from the New York City Council, they have kept the campus closed for the entire academic year to prevent further on-campus protests. When, a few weeks ago, students briefly barged into the main reading room of Butler Library and scribbled some pro-Palestine chants on the furniture, the university suspended all of them, as well as some bystanders, just in case.
This is not what “deliberate indifference” looks like.
The legal process for a Title VI claim is lengthy and complicated. As one law school faculty member explains:
There’s a documented process with lots of opportunities to rebut. Then there’s negotiations on whether/how to come into compliance. If they can’t get there, the agency makes a determination. If the regulated body disagrees, the agency has to bring litigation in court and meet the appropriate standard of proof, OR they bring suit and the parties enter into a settlement backed by a consent decree.
Obviously, none of this stuff has happened. The law school prof goes on:
It is very rare for an agency to complete the review this quickly, and to come to a final determination this quickly. That suggests to me that there were short cuts taken to prove the conclusion the Trump Administration wanted (similar to the Department of Education finding, which was legally insufficient and is invoked by reference in this press release). It would quickly be enjoined or fall apart, in my opinion, if Columbia filed suit instead of working with the administration to damage the university.
In the wake of the government’s illegal and unjustified action against Harvard’s international students, Harvard President Alan Garber wrote to his community. His message is clear, direct, and humane. “We condemn this unlawful and unwarranted action,” Garber writes. “It imperils the futures of thousands of students and scholars across Harvard and serves as a warning to countless others at colleges and universities throughout the country who have come to America to pursue their education and fulfill their dreams. We have just filed a complaint, and a motion for a temporary restraining order will follow. As we pursue legal remedies, we will do everything in our power to support our students and scholars.”
The government, Garber says, claims that Harvard has been unresponsive to federal requests. But this is not the case. Then he writes:
For those international students and scholars affected by yesterday’s action, know that you are vital members of our community. You are our classmates and friends, our colleagues and mentors, our partners in the work of this great institution. Thanks to you, we know more and understand more, and our country and our world are more enlightened and more resilient. We will support you as we do our utmost to ensure that Harvard remains open to the world.
Garber’s terrific message reminded us of something a friend said about Wednesday’s graduation ceremony at Columbia, which he had attended. When Acting President Claire Shipman was getting booed, some students called out, “Free Mahmoud Khalil!” Our friend said that he wished Shipman had responded very simply. “She should have said, ‘Yes. Free Mahmoud Khalil!’ How difficult is that?”
The moment we are in is very, very hard. But it is not complicated. The Trump people have shown us, over and over again, who they are. So—who are we?