Your Cart is Empty
Josh Moody
Inside Higher Ed
Excerpt: Columbia University has agreed to a $200 million settlement with the federal government after months of scrutiny over how it handled pro-Palestinian student protests and campus antisemitism.
The long-rumored deal was announced by acting president Claire Shipman Wednesday night. “This agreement marks an important step forward after a period of sustained federal scrutiny and institutional uncertainty,” Shipman said. “The settlement was carefully crafted to protect the values that define us and allow our essential research partnership with the federal government to get back on track. Importantly, it safeguards our independence, a critical condition for academic excellence and scholarly exploration, work that is vital to the public interest.”
Walter Olsen
The Unpopulist, Substack
Excerpt: Billing itself as the “Manhattan Statement,” the new manifesto was sponsored by the New York-based Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. (I was affiliated with the Institute for many years, through 2010; so far as I know I haven’t met the drafters of this document). One of its promoters has labeled it “a program of national reform.”
What is distinctive about the Manhattan Statement is not that it calls for reforming universities; others regularly call for that. In fact, many of its reforms, considered at a vague and aspirational enough level of abstraction, are neither new nor even particularly controversial. What stands out is by whom and by what means the manifesto proposes to impose the changes.
Justine McDaniel, Susan Svrluga and Emily Davies
Washington Post
Excerpt: Columbia University disciplined more than 70 students for participating in a May protest of the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza, the school said Tuesday, days after university officials hoping to cut a deal with the Trump administration to restore federal funding attended a meeting at the White House.
The university suspended or expelled more than 80 percent of the students sanctioned in connection with a demonstration at the university’s Butler Library, according to university spokeswoman Millie Wert. Some will have their degrees revoked, while others were put on probation.
Emma Pettit
Chronicle of Higher Education
Excerpt: Whether college students are confronted with the proper texts, ideas, and arguments is the subject of intense, often politicized debate. Critics on the right think the average undergrad is fed a steady diet of progressive fare and is starved of anything more moderate or conservative. But many professors say that’s an exaggeration, and that their classrooms are the site of constructive intellectual conflict.
Yet for all the disagreement about college teaching, what texts students actually engage with is something of a black box. A new working paper from professors at Claremont McKenna and Scripps Colleges attempted to peer inside it, by examining how three political and moral controversies — racial bias in the criminal-justice system, the ethics of abortion, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — are taught.
John Tomasi
Heterodox Academy
Excerpt: Last week, the Manhattan Institute issued a statement on university reform, calling on the “President of the United States to draft a new contract with the universities.” Many of the signatories hold university and faculty appointments. Two days after the statement was issued, UATX President Carlos Carvalho responded with a forceful endorsement of the statement, which has led to controversy that has already prompted the resignation of Lawrence H. Summers from that institution’s board of advisors.
The Manhattan Institute statement’s recommendations for university reform are not novel; in fact, they are similar to a number of the reforms HxA recommended last month in our Open Inquiry U Reform Agenda. But there are important distinctions between the two reform agendas that must be explicitly called out.
Franklin Foer
The Atlantic
Excerpt: The email landed at 10 minutes to midnight on a Friday in early April—a more menacing email than Alan Garber had imagined. The Harvard president had been warned that something was coming. His university had drawn the unwanted and sustained attention of the White House, and he’d spent weeks scrambling to stave off whatever blow was coming, calling his institution’s influential alumni and highly paid fixers to arrange a meeting with someone—anyone—in the administration.
Garber wanted an audience because he believed that Harvard had a case to make. The administration had been publicly flogging elite universities for failing to confront campus anti-Semitism. But Garber—a practicing Jew with a brother living in Israel—believed Harvard had done exactly that.
