What Columbia Should Do

Donald Trump, as he so excels at doing, has put Columbia University in a pickle. Take away $400 million in federal funding because of the school’s failure to respond to anti-Semitic activity and leave another roughly $5 billion in federal contracts between the U.S. government and Columbia hanging in the balance based on what the school does next.

Columbia’s leadership is likely panicking because they don’t want to lose the money, but they also know that every move they’ve made since Oct 7, 2023 in trying to find the right balance between all of the different stakeholders — Jewish students, students who hate Israel, professors on both sides, donors, administrators, the media, alumni, local government, state government and now the federal government — has shown it’s not actually possible.¹ 

They keep trying and failing to find the magic solution that appeases everyone. It’s not for a lack of effort or brain power. It’s because there is no right answer. The only answer is to do what they truly, deeply believe to be right and to follow the values they want to guide their institution long term. That’s it. 

Personally, I like the suspension of the federal funds and forcing Columbia to stand up to anti-Semitism. I think the students who stormed Barnard’s Milbank Hall should all be expelled. But I think what Columbia’s administration is likely doing right now (working around the clock to figure out the right answer to Trump’s specific challenge) is invariably going to be the wrong approach, whatever it is. Instead, take a step back.

Columbia has been around since 1754.² That’s close to 300 years. Hopefully they’ll be around another 300 years. Which means that the moment we’re in is an opportunity to figure out what they stand for — what they truly want the institution to be and to mean, way beyond the specific question of Israel and Hamas — and choose to live with it. 

They could decide that the university has been overtaken by politics on the left and they need to course correct back to the middle in terms of their policies overall, in terms of the classes and majors they offer, the student clubs they support and fund, what their professors are teaching their students, what policies govern hiring, their tenure decisions and academic offerings. They could decide they’ve empowered the faculty too much. They could declare that faculty votes of no confidence no longer hold any significance. 

They could decide that protecting the interests of STEM professors with major federal research dollars should come ahead of the views of liberal arts professors with lots of opinions but far less market value. They could decide that the harm to the university and to society overall caused by seeing critical research disrupted due to someone like Trump pulling funding (and we know Trump doesn’t care about the harm he causes) is far too great to risk. 

This is my belief. But everyone has a personal belief. That’s different from determining the moral underpinnings of an institution. And I’m not a member of the Board of Trustees. I’m not charged with determining the values and future of the university (I know the faculty and students will say that the whole “community” needs to decide this; that’s false — someone has to be in charge or otherwise, no one is). 

Or, the Board could decide that everything the school has done over the past few decades is mainly right, that their actions broadly stand for a society they want to live in — one where students and faculty can freely express their views no matter how controversial, or perhaps even one that goes even further, embracing safe spaces and affirming that views contrary to the underlying values of the university will not be given the same platform (what most liberal arts schools have effectively been doing for years now). One that advances the ideas of diversity and equality and inclusivity because, in their view, those are simply the right things to do. Even if they think certain elements of DEI have taken the school in directions they didn’t intend, there’s nothing wrong with saying that they believe the underlying principles are something that take precedence over the politics of the moment. 

They can, legitimately, decide that making decisions on what to teach, what types of professors to hire and promote, what types of scholarship to fund, what the endowment should invest in should be based on furthering specific ideological principles and righting historical wrongs. They could decide that decisions should be informed by everyone on campus and not just the board and administration and that faculty votes of no confidence or faculty senate decisions on student suspensions are important. And that they’ll live with the financial and political consequences of holding and sticking to these beliefs, whatever they are. Having principles only means something if you are willing to sacrifice for them. Personally, I wouldn’t agree with all of their choices, but I would respect it. 

This takes a different type of approach from the Board of Trustees and the university president. But we know that when a university (like the University of Chicago, which has always allowed ideological diversity across the spectrum and yet successfully mandated respectful behavior) has principles that it consistently lives by regardless of what’s in political favor at the moment, it tends to do a lot better overall because they stand for something deeper than public sentiment at that single moment.

And it needs to come from the heart. Don’t hire McKinsey to conduct a two year study where they interview hundreds of stakeholders and write a report that will invariably be an attempt at political compromise that leaves you exactly where you are now. Don’t appoint a series of subcommittees. 

You’re the Board of Trustees. You took this role for a reason. Just lock yourselves in a room until you agree upon what truly matters. Some of you may even resign in protest or exhaustion along the way. That’s fine. At least you’ll emerge knowing what you actually believe in. 

1. And that's not to mention ICE's recent detention of Columbia grad Mahmoud Khalil, which is bringing more tumult to campus and on which the university hasn't yet taken a side.

2. Not sure if this is necessary or relevant but for full disclosure, I taught as an adjunct professor at Columbia Business School for four years, ending in 2023.