Columbia must stand up to the Trump Administration in the second round - Incite at Columbia University

Originally published in the Columbia Spectator on March 27, 2025.

The letter that the university submitted in response to the Trump Administration’s demands fails to rise to the gravity of the moment.

This is an authoritarian moment. An authoritarian administration is trying to bring to heel all alternative power centers: first, its own political party and with it, Congress; then the civil service and independent agencies; then law firms and the courts. And in the process the Administration finds that it has to subdue also the media and universities. Universities are a target because they produce a form of social power that is dangerous to all authoritarian regimes, namely truth. Not final truth, not God-given truth, but empirical truth that withstands the hardest tests we can devise.

Columbia University in the City of New York is a special target of this Administration because we are one of NYC’s largest employers and because an attack on Columbia is an attack on a proud liberal city and on its diverse communities. Despite the rhetoric about antisemitism (about which this Administration cares little), Columbia is a special target also because historically it has been the Ivy League university most welcoming to Jews and now other immigrants fleeing persecution. 

Columbia had a chance to rise to the moment, to lead other universities, as well as civil society, by showing how to stand up to this illegal and dangerous campaign. The letter that the university submitted failed the test. We appreciate the extraordinary, difficult position President Armstrong is in, but reading the letter, we feel as if we are working at the Washington Post. We still say all the right things – “democracy dies in darkness”; “we hold academic freedom as our top priority,” etc.—but we make pragmatic deals with gangsters and authoritarians. 

The University claims that we have surrendered nothing; that all of the changes referenced in our letter predate the Trump administration; that the changes reflect our best values; that they arise from a robust engagement with all stakeholders at the University. MESAAS is not under academic receivership, just a “senior vice-provost for regional programs, a position we have been working on for some time.” The university did not accept the IHRA definition of antisemitism, just the working definition of the university’s own taskforce, with its little clause at the very end about “certain double standards applied to Israel.” We are enhancing our carefully developed UJB process by situating it within the Provost Office. We are training our own public safety officers to make arrests in order to avoid the brutality of the NYPD. 

There can be legitimate debate about any of these claims. They are partially true, and partially questionable. But this is beside the point. The most important fact is that all those who are watching—both those who are looking for Columbia to lead, not least Columbia’s alumni, and those who are looking to bring it to heel—all those who understand the importance of this moment, interpret our response as appeasement. We know where appeasing authoritarian leaders takes you—to the next round of demands, even more preposterous than the first.  

When such demands are made, what shall we do? We must say “no more”. We must take our chance to lead. Such leadership requires unity, and unity is created through collective sacrifice. No units or groups in the university should feel that they were left shouldering most of the burden. Each can contribute to buffering the financial fallout of the Trump Administration’s extortion policy. Most importantly, our Trustees must free some of our endowment so that we can last on our own for the next two years. This is not impossible; it will not ruin us. Not so many years ago our endowment was 12 billion dollars. We did not feel poor then because we were not poor. We can return to this level by freeing 3 billion over the next two years, paying out 1.5 billion per year (roughly equal to our level of dependence on government funds), and still be wealthy. Our tenured faculty and our senior administrators who earn more than $200,000 per year can volunteer to take a 10% pay cut while keeping the salaries of junior faculty intact. We will still be doing fine. Our alumni can increase their donations to help us weather the storm. Graduate students may need to temper their demands in collective bargaining negotiations. 

We will all lose something, but we will gain by this much more. Moreover, despite the Administration’s attempts to isolate Columbia, we are not alone. We have a huge body of alumni, many of whom are looking to Columbia to put up a fight. We are an integral part of the great city of New York, and we work with New York communities, schools and neighborhoods. And if we lead, other universities will follow. By coming together and acting in unison we have a chance to make a stand in defense of the core values we hold, in defense of civil society, in defense of our liberty. Columbia risked squandering our unity by appearing to appease the Trump administration. But if history is any guide, we will have another opportunity for a unified response. Let us not squander that chance.

Gil Eyal
Professor of Sociology
Director of the Trust Collaboratory at Incite Institute

Peter Bearman
Jonathan R. Cole Professor of Sociology
Director, Incite Institute