Uproar at Harvard, jeers at Columbia signify campus divisions over Trump's political influence
In the recent hustle and bustle of campus graduations, the cheers for Harvard President Alan Garber and the boos for Columbia acting President Claire Shipman weren't just score-setting amusement. These reactions hinted at the profound impact the two elite universities have had on the ongoing national discourse about power and the protection of higher education.
The contrast between their reactions showcased the divergent paths each institution chose in their face-offs with the Trump administration. While some flinched, others stood firm, setting the stage for heated debates over who holds the reins and what college should safeguard.
When the Trump administration stepped up its assault on student activists, accusations of antisemitism, and more, Harvard and Columbia became prime targets in the broader ideological war with colleges. Each handled the turbulence differently, with consequences that still ripple across the higher education landscape.
Columbia took the road less traveled, publicly apologizing for its handling of protests, disciplining students involved, and eventually cooperating with federal lawmakers as political pressure mounted. Harvard, on the other hand, took the fight to the courts, defending its autonomy and resisting demands for significant policy changes, all while federal funds were frozen, and attacks intensified.
Experts hail Harvard's bravery, highlighting that its strong and experienced leadership sets an example for other schools to follow. Columbia's indecisive and unstable leadership, seemingly more eager to mollify federal pressure, has only fueled internal backlash and deepened campus divisions.
As the battle between Harvard and Columbia has unfolded, the fallout goes well beyond courtrooms and congressional hearings. The discord echoes on academic squares and graduation stages, drawing both praise and criticism for Harvard's defiance and Columbia's concessions.
"Columbia rolled over to Trump's hostile government takeover," remarks Will Creeley, legal director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, "whereas Harvard decided to fight, galvanizing the larger academic community."
While Harvard's larger endowment undeniably offered an advantage, the fundamental difference lies in their responses and what it reveals about power, protest, and the future of American higher education.
Harvard digs in
Bracing against billions of frozen federal funds and aggressive demands, Harvard chose to stand its ground. Garber, the university president, promised to protect the right to free speech and the school's independence.
"Harvard is well-positioned to lead this fight on behalf of American higher education," states Catherine Ross, a law professor at George Washington University. "Its actions encourage and give permission to other schools to defend themselves."
When the Trump administration scrutinized Harvard's handling of pro-Palestinian protests, it accused the university of tolerating antisemitism and fired off a barrage of measures, including revoking the university's ability to enroll international students, freezing $2.2 billion in federal funding, and stripping it of $60 million in contracts.
The government's attempts to control Harvard's core academic decision-making drew keen opposition. Creeley argues that the First Amendment bars government coercion of this nature. Harvard openly criticized the administration's demands, taking the fight to court to challenge the administration's attempts to dictate campus policies.
Courts have so far sided with Harvard, with a federal judge ordering the government not to make any changes to Harvard's student visa program indefinitely. However, Trump later reintroduced uncertainty by signing a proclamation to suspend international visas for new Harvard students.
Universities across the nation have been quietly discussing terms with White House aides to avoid Harvard's predicament, a source claims. Meanwhile, Harvard's settlement of two Title VI lawsuits over alleged tolerance of antisemitism garnered wide-spread faculty and student support.
The settlement resulted in several changes, including adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of antisemitism and hiring a point person to address complaints. Despite winning the legal battles, Harvard faces existential risks. The potential loss of generations of students and research due to funding freezes could prove costly.
Despite the risks, Harvard's defiance emerged as a symbol of institutional autonomy in an era plagued by political targeting. As sophomore Caleb Thompson, co-president of the Harvard Undergraduate Association, put it, "We are all very proud of the administration for the way it has stood up against the Trump administration—and stood strong."
Columbia bends
Naïvely optimistic, perhaps, Columbia University faced the same protests and scrutiny but opted for a more conciliatory approach. By disciplining students and cooperating with the federal government, the University hoped to reduce scrutiny and safeguard funding.
Unfortunately, this strategy met with backlash, with students and faculty accusing Columbia of capitulating to the administration's demands. The University's concessions failed to stave off funding cuts or threats to its accreditation.
The Trump administration stripped Columbia of $400 million in federal funding, alleging the university's failure to address antisemitism during pro-Palestine protests. The administration demanded several policy changes, including banning masks and enacting merit-based hiring and admissions policies.
Columbia responded by implementing restrictions on demonstrations, new disciplinary procedures, and a review of its Middle East curriculum. Even so, the administration did not return the funds and later declared the school non-compliant with federal civil rights laws.
Title VI requires due process, investigation, congressional approval before funds are withheld, and an opportunity for the school to respond, according to law experts. To cut off funds for a hostile environment against Jewish students, there must be a finding of "deliberate indifference" on the part of the university.
In the face of mounting criticism, Columbia's leadership finds itself in a precarious position. Some argue that it should have insisted on the government proceeding according to legal procedures instead of cooperating with the administration's demands. The resulting tension has left the campus community feeling disillusioned and distrustful of the administration.
The contrasting approaches of Harvard and Columbia in their dealings with the Trump administration serve as a clear indication of their dedication towards different aspects. While Harvard digs in, standing firm against the federal pressure and protecting its autonomy, Columbia bends, attempting to cooperate and appease the government in the hope of safeguarding funding. These actions reflect not only the universities' stance on education and self-development, but also their political positions in the ongoing discourse about power and higher education in America.
