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.
Isabel Vincent and Benjamin Weinthal
New York Post
Excerpt: A controversial Princeton professor with strong ties to the Iranian regime has quietly stepped down from the Ivy League school, following a campaign from dissidents to remove him.
Seyed Hossein Mousavian, a Middle East security and nuclear policy specialist, retired from his position after 15 years as the head of the school’s Program on Science and Global Security on June 1, according to an announcement listing retiring employees on Princeton’s website. The professor is controversial for being heavily involved in Iran’s chemical and nuclear programs beginning in 2004, long before the country was known to have been building up its nuclear arsenal, according to German journalist Bruno Schirra.
Rose Horowitch
The Atlantic
Excerpt: The leaders of America’s elite universities are required, by the borderline-masochistic, semi-impossible nature of their job, to be skilled in the art of performative comity.
So it was a bit of a shock when, at the end of an April panel discussion, Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber turned on the chancellors of Vanderbilt and Washington University in St. Louis, all but accusing them of carrying water for the Trump administration.
Jonathan Cohn
The Bulwark
Excerpt: Terence Tao may be one of the smartest human beings on the planet. That’s not an exaggeration.
Now a UCLA professor, Tao has been a mathematics superstar for pretty much his entire life, going all the way back to the early 1970s when he was a 2-year-old with building blocks showing the other kids how to count. He was 7 when he started calculus, 13 when he became the youngest person ever to win the International Mathematical Olympiad, and 19 when he started his Ph.D. at Princeton.
Vimal Patel
New York Times
Excerpt: Around the height of the pro-Palestinian campus protests last year, a conservative journalist sent an email to the federal government complaining about Princeton University.
“Jewish students have felt increasingly unwelcome and unsafe at Princeton,” the journalist, Zachary Marschall, wrote. He cited a series of news reports about pro-Palestinian activism on campus, including a student group demanding “the full dismantling of the Zionist apartheid state.” He wanted a full investigation.
Joel Ibabao
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: The data is stark: 70 percent of Class of 2025 alumni who expect to earn above $120,000 next year say that they will not be working in the service of humanity, while 77 percent of those making under $90,000 say they will. However, the idea of working “in the service of humanity” reflected in these numbers is too narrow — earning to support one’s family and earning to give are both noble, service-oriented goals in themselves.
I agree that deciding on a career path in college means weighing different values, such as ambition, service, and the pursuit of self-understanding. While Shen acknowledges the need for students from low-income households to earn to give back to their families, by writing that “overlooking our responsibility to the public is no small error,” he shows the stigma still faced by students who are just trying to help their families and inadvertently reveals an elitist bias.
