Columbia University

 The President is usually set on "winning," but he has settled this week for a draw. Columbia University and the administration reached a settlement yesterday that, in theory, brings a months-long battle between the academics and politicos to an end.On the face of it, Columbia has still pulled the short straw. The university will pay a $200 million fine over three years to address the allegations that it was in breach of anti-discrimination laws, specifically in regards to the safety of Jewish students on campus.Moreover, Columbia has agreed to a "jointly selected independent monitor" that will watch over the university’s actions as it implements new student assessments and hiring policies.

While the fact that Zohran Mamdani had identified as black on his Columbia University application stole the headlines, the hack that exposed this information highlighted something much more insidious in the college admissions system.Admitting the accuracy of the leaked data, Mamdani claimed that he was simply trying “to capture the fullness of [his] background” by checking the “Black or African American” box in 2019. New Yorkers raised an eyebrow. But what would have alarmed them more was the revelation buried in the trove of hacked data: that affirmative action is alive and well in America. The leak of Columbia’s admissions data demonstrates that, even after the Supreme Court ruled affirmative action policies unconstitutional in SFFA v.

President Trump has already dropped the first hammer on Harvard. He’s ready to drop the whole tool chest on a whole slew of universities – and it won’t be pretty. Outraged Democrats will call the punishing sanctions authoritarian, even fascist, and well beyond the authority of a constitutional officer. Republicans will back the president, saying universities had plenty of chances to correct their serious problems and did nothing.  Some threatened sanctions are readily defensible, such as demanding better protection for Jewish students and eliminating discrimination in admissions, hiring and promotion. Some are not, such as demanding intrusive federal oversight of course content and departmental hiring. All Trump’s actions will be challenged in court.

Last week’s violent anti-Semitic protest at Stanford is yet another sign of a pernicious climate on many campuses. The immediate targets are Jews and Israel. The larger targets are many of the values we prize in the West. At Stanford, students broke into the university president’s office using hammers and crowbars. They proceeded to barricade themselves inside, destroy the furnishings, and scrawl noxious graffiti there and on the building outside. Some estimates say they caused $700,000 in damages. Twelve students were arrested by local police. The Santa Clara District attorney announced that the break-in had been carefully organized in advance, caused enormous damage and warranted criminal charges. But, he said, it did not warrant severe punishment.

In his inaugural address, Donald Trump promised to safeguard the First Amendment. “After years and years of illegal and unconstitutional federal efforts to restrict free expression, I also will sign an Executive Order to immediately stop all government censorship and bring back free speech to America,” he said. This was music to my ears — but with the recent arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian green-card holder who organized student protests at Columbia University, the administration is demonstrating that First Amendment protections don’t apply when it comes to criticizing Israel’s conduct in the Gaza conflict. I support the deportation of foreign nationals who are in the country illegally or have committed crimes.

Yesterday, with growing sadness, I read a wonderful book about teaching and learning, written by one of the great teachers of the past century. Why the sadness? Because the author, Gilbert Highet, was a revered professor at Columbia in the Fifties and Sixties. It is impossible to read his paean to learning, written a half-century ago, without weeping for what his university has become. When Highet wrote of learning, he meant absorbing from history’s greatest minds, from Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, Virgil, Cicero, Machiavelli, Hobbes and Locke, and teaching their lessons to students who wished to learn from them. Reading Highet’s words a half century later, we realize he was speaking of another time and place — virtually another university.