Your Cart is Empty
August 19, 2025
By Tal Fortgang ‘17
Columbia University’s recent settlement with the Trump administration represents a long-awaited watershed moment in the ongoing battle between the federal government and American universities. Its arrival is enormously symbolic within the ongoing saga and is a sign of things to come. How would the federal government treat free speech and academic freedom concerns? Was it looking to avoid going to court, or would it welcome the opportunity to litigate formally? And how much would each side be willing to compromise on its deeply entrenched positions?
A settlement – better described as a deal, not merely because dealmaking is the President’s preferred framework for governance but because the feds did not actually sue Columbia -- was always the most likely outcome of the showdown. It is not inherently inappropriate as a resolution to legitimate civil rights concerns, though the administration probably could have achieved its objectives more sustainably had it followed the procedure set out in civil rights law. Nevertheless, a deal has been struck, and assessing it is more complex than simply deeming it good or bad by virtue of its existing – though many certainly wish each side had simply declined to negotiate with the other.
Digging into the deal – and attending to its silences -- reveals a combination of promising reforms, distractions, and even some failures. Most critically, the agreement’s silence on admissions and hiring practices suggests that the underlying issues that precipitated this crisis will likely resurface, creating a cycle of federal intervention that will relegate this episode to a footnote.
Sena Chang
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: Antisemitic graffiti of a gray swastika was found on the wall of a graduate student apartment building inside the Lakeside housing complex in mid-July. The graffiti was removed immediately following multiple reports, with the Department of Public Safety (DPS) opening an investigation into the incident and increasing foot patrols in the area in response, according to University spokesperson Jennifer Morrill.
Construction was underway inside Lakeside at the time of the incident, and the University has not yet determined whether the graffiti was the work of a student or contractor. No suspects have been named.
Samuel J. Abrams
Minding the Campus
Excerpt: When Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber turned on his fellow university leaders at an April panel discussion, all but accusing Vanderbilt and Washington University chancellors of “carrying water for the Trump administration,” he revealed the dangerous delusion gripping elite academia.
This wasn’t a debate about abstract principles. It was Eisgruber’s desperate attempt to maintain the fiction that elite universities are victims rather than perpetrators, that accountability is oppression, and that denial can substitute for leadership.
Gideon Steinbach
February 13, 2024
The excellent discussion by Christie Davis serves as strong evidence for why universities must adopt political and ideological neutrality. The scholarly discussion resorts to inflammatory politics to either support or counter scholarly statements. For instance it provides the “DeSantis” response to DEI, rather than the scientific response, rigorously presented by groups of scientists, such as: Abbot et al, https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/3/1/236. Academic neutrality on political issues, protects students, faculty, and the public from indoctrination, which is the intrusion of political ideologies into scholarly discourse. As referred in the discussion, we in the Northeast are not intimidated by DeSantis, and we in the South are not intimidated by Biden. Neutrality keeps us focused on scientific rather than ideological methods for pursuing knowledge. As an aside. let’s also glimpse at the historical perspective. During the anti-Vietnam-war demonstrations, we were starved for information and listened to the speakers to find out the facts. The demonstration leaders were few and publicly accountable. Today, students have the responsibility to perform the rigorous research prior to the demonstration, and the responsibility to critically appraise what they hear. The days of blindly cheering the leader are gone.
Gideon Steinbach, MD PhD