Letter: Columbia Should Not Capitulate to Trump

Dear Acting President Shipman:

An article that appeared in the July 13 issue of the New York Times described Columbia University’s efforts to restore federal funding to the University by resolving its controversy with the Trump Administration. The Times article noted that Columbia’s decision to engage in negotiations with the Trump Administration has been “widely criticized within academia as a form of capitulation.” You were quoted as responding to the criticism by asserting that “[f]ollowing the law and attempting to resolve a complaint is not capitulation.”

In many circumstances, the avoidance of litigation is a good thing. But some controversies implicate values that are so foundational that they cannot be shunted aside. Some principles are so fundamental that they must be asserted and defended, by litigation if necessary. This appears to be such a circumstance. The concept of academic freedom, as a body of protective principles, originated out of fear that private donors and self-interested politicians might use the power of the purse to dictate college curricula and curtail independent scholarship. Trump’s use of federal funding as a vehicle to intrude upon academic governance and to dictate academic discourse provides a classic example of what the framers of the concept of academic freedom most feared. Trump’s abusive behavior at Columbia and elsewhere demonstrates the need for the vigorous assertion of academic freedom principles.

You speak about “following the law.” But it is the Trump Administration that is not “following the law.” In a March 20, 2025 letter that the New York Civil Liberties Union sent to the Trump Administration (a copy of which we previously sent to you), we identified three significant violations of law committed by the federal Task Force in cancelling Columbia’s funding. First, in its invocation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Trump Administration seemed to ignore entirely its obligation to interpret and apply Title VI in a manner that comports with First Amendment standards. Second, the Administration violated clear regulations imposing obligatory procedures which must be satisfied before funds may be cancelled under Title VI. Third, the demands that the Administration attempted to impose, as conditions for the restoration of funding, violated well-settled academic freedom principles.

In our March 20 letter, we recognized that antisemitism and any form of religious bigotry are invidious and deeply offensive. We further recognized that antisemitic violence can make no claim of legitimacy; that “incitement” and “true threats” are similary unprotected by the First Amendment; and that religious bigotry, in the form of verbal harassment, might also be restricted if the restrictions are “narrowly tailored” to reach only speech that is serious enough to have the systemic effect of denying equal educational opportunities.

In this regard, we understand that Columbia, in its effort to combat religious bigotry, has adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. We have several cautionary concerns regarding the IHRA standard and its guidelines. The IHRA guidelines properly recognize that criticisms of policies pursued by the Israeli government cannot be regarded as antisemitic. But the guidelines are considerably more ambiguous and misleading when it comes to criticism of the decision to create and maintain the State of Israel. Moreover, there are some statements uttered in the exercise of political protest that are considered by many individuals to be antisemitic but are not so regarded by many others. Opinions vary significantly as to whether slogans such as “From the River to the Sea” or “Free Palestine” are to be regarded as antisemitic. Neither the IHRA definition of antisemitism nor its guidelines address, much less resolve, these and other close questions. That is why the IHRA definition of antisemitism is of limited utility in addressing conflicts of the sort that Columbia has recently confronted.

Of greater utility and consequence to the University is the inquiry into whether statements made in the course of political protest violate the standards imposed by Title VI. Because Title VI is a legislative enactment, it must be interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with the Constitution, in general, and the First Amendment, in particular. Efforts to punish or even regulate political speech on the basis of its content can only be sustained, under the First Amendment, if such efforts advance “compelling” state interests and do so in a manner that is “narrowly tailored” in the pursuit of those interests. Com batting antisemitism or any form of religious bigotry is unquestionably a “compelling” societal interest. But, in applying First Amendment standards, the federal courts have “narrowly tailored” Title VI so that, in regulating political expression, it can only reach words that, as noted above, present serious or systemic deprivations of equal educational opportunities.

This “narrowly tailored” and restrictive reading of Title VI will undoubtedly leave some offensive speech unpunished. But such objectionable speech need not remain unaddressed. The Supreme Court has importantly observed that, in many circumstances under our system of free expression, the appropriate response to offensive speech lies not in coercing silence or imposing punishment but in providing “more speech” to correct the wrong-minded or offensive expression. Universities are uniquely positioned to support this “more speech” approach by creating and maintaining opportunities for reasoned discourse.

We appreciate the difficult position in which you find yourself. And we believe that you seek a resolution that, in your view, best advances the interests of Columbia and that offers the best opportunity for the University to flourish. We understand that you may feel that you are not free to discuss the merits of these issues with us or even to respond to this letter. Nevertheless, I write to urge that you not underestimate the damage that may be done to Columbia’s reputation and to the concept of academic freedom by yielding to the bully-boy tactics and the unlawful conduct imposed by the Trump Administration.

Sincerely,

Arthur Eisenberg